Is research without authorship still worth it?

[Latteandaprayer]

I got onto a paid project, but the PI sent an email to us saying that if we want authorship, we would have to forgo being paid and contribute a lot more to the project (understandably so). However, I’m starting clerkships now and I’m genuinely worried I won’t have time to do a good job writing the manuscript on top of analyzing hours of data and drawing “mini-conclusions.” If I don’t write, I don’t get authorship, and I’d have to write a substantial amount (not just a couple paragraphs or whatever).

I might just go for pay and an acknowledgment. I’m interested in IM or FM right now. I dropped the MSTP, so I want to make sure I still have some research to show I’m not disinterested.

For context, I came into med school with two first-authorships in basic science, so I’m no foreigner to the writing or publishing process.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

Garbage and petty of the PD. I would stay away from working with this person

 

[Latteandaprayer]

Garbage and petty of the PD. I would stay away from working with this person

Agreed… but if I include this on ERAS without authorship does it fulfill some research checkbox?

 

[GoSpursGo]

The short answer to your question is that no, I don't think research is worth much without authorship when applying to residency.

I want to also echo that this is inappropriate and flies in the face of appropriate authorship guidelines which have now been largely accepted by major journals. See the first section of this paper: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1715374115 . Unless they are aiming for a journal that specifically has different authorship criteria, then as long as you made a "substantial contribution" to analyzing the data AND revise the draft, then you should get authorship, period. I guess the real question is whether your "mini conclusions" are a "substantial" contribution, and it probably depends on whether or not they actually wind up being discussed as a major point within the results/discussion. Whether or not you are paid or not is immaterial.

Additionally, this is why a good PI should set expectations for authorship prior to starting the work rather than after you've already sunk hours into analyzing data.

Of course, this is probably above your paygrade to fight and if you try you will probably lose. My question is, exactly how much would you need to write? If you've already been analyzing the data, how difficult will it really be to write up your conclusions? And if you're writing a substantial amount, what level of authorship would you get--first? Second? I would not work with this PI again given all this shadiness, but since you've already sunk a bunch of hours into this endeavor I'd probably try to salvage what you can from what you've already done. And then tell all your fellow students to avoid this PI like the plague.

 

[Goro]

I got onto a paid project, but the PI sent an email to us saying that if we want authorship, we would have to forgo being paid and contribute a lot more to the project (understandably so). However, I’m starting clerkships now and I’m genuinely worried I won’t have time to do a good job writing the manuscript on top of analyzing hours of data and drawing “mini-conclusions.” If I don’t write, I don’t get authorship, and I’d have to write a substantial amount (not just a couple paragraphs or whatever).

I might just go for pay and an acknowledgment. I’m interested in IM or FM right now. I dropped the MSTP, so I want to make sure I still have some research to show I’m not disinterested.

For context, I came into med school with two first-authorships in basic science, so I’m no foreigner to the writing or publishing process.

For residency, no.

Is the PI a swine? Oh yes.

 

[Latteandaprayer]

The short answer to your question is that no, I don't think research is worth much without authorship when applying to residency.

I want to also echo that this is inappropriate and flies in the face of appropriate authorship guidelines which have now been largely accepted by major journals. See the first section of this paper: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1715374115 . Unless they are aiming for a journal that specifically has different authorship criteria, then as long as you made a "substantial contribution" to analyzing the data AND revise the draft, then you should get authorship, period. I guess the real question is whether your "mini conclusions" are a "substantial" contribution, and it probably depends on whether or not they actually wind up being discussed as a major point within the results/discussion. Whether or not you are paid or not is immaterial.

Additionally, this is why a good PI should set expectations for authorship prior to starting the work rather than after you've already sunk hours into analyzing data.

Of course, this is probably above your paygrade to fight and if you try you will probably lose. My question is, exactly how much would you need to write? If you've already been analyzing the data, how difficult will it really be to write up your conclusions? And if you're writing a substantial amount, what level of authorship would you get--first? Second? I would not work with this PI again given all this shadiness, but since you've already sunk a bunch of hours into this endeavor I'd probably try to salvage what you can from what you've already done. And then tell all your fellow students to avoid this PI like the plague.

no clear guidelines how much I’d write, just “more than a section and some of the discussion.” It’s qualitative research and a lot of reading transcripts of focus groups interviews. I’d read 8 out of the 24 transcripts and analyze them (but it takes about 2 hours per transcript, more if it’s particularly complex). Then I’d draw a mini-conclusion, which is basically “Many participants felt X due to Y, and would like Z changes.”

Because I’m only reading 1/3 of the transcripts, it would require reading everyone else’s analyses to understand the scope of the project. It would also require a lot more prior literature reading to contextualize the findings. Finally, I would probably get middle to near-end author, no where near first or second.

The analyses and mini-conclusions are not considered enough for authorship, according to the PI.

I have sunk about 5 hours into the project, and analysis alone will take 16-20 more hours. Not much. But writing would take a lot more time and energy.

 

[GoSpursGo]

no clear guidelines how much I’d write, just “more than a section and some of the discussion.” Also, it’s qualitative research and a lot of transcript reading of interviews. I’d read 8/24 transcripts and analyze them (but it takes about 2 hours per transcript). Then I’d draw a mini-conclusion, which is basically “Many participants felt X due to Y, and would like Z changes.”

Because I’m only reading 1/3 of the transcripts, it would require reading everyone else’s analyses to understand the scope of the project. It would also require a lot more prior literature reading to contextualize the findings. Finally, I would probably get middle to near-end author, no where near first or second.

Like... section meaning a subsection within the results? Or, the entire results section? If the first that may still be manageable. If the latter, that's absurd to expect a non-first/senior author to write an entire section.

And how impactful is this paper going to be?

 

[Dr Meow]

Your PI wants to make you into their postdoc slaves but without any benefit
Drop that trash excuse for a lab immediately.
I've worked in a lab for 7 years + a summer lab for 7 pubs fully paid. No good lab should make you pick between it.
And in the end, your smelly jack fruit of a boss would take your money and give you no pubs.

My impression is this:
I think if you got 0 pubs, any research is better than none even without pub (but that's still not saying much).
If you have >1 pub, then any research done without pubs is worthless. That 1 pub will greatly outweigh any nonpublished research.

 

[GoSpursGo]

The analyses and mini-conclusions are not considered enough for authorship, according to the PI.

I have sunk about 5 hours into the project, and analysis alone will take 16-20 more hours. Not much. But writing would take a lot more time and energy.

Unless this is an unusually impactful paper and/or you have no other potential PIs to work with, drop it. You're not that far in the hole, and who knows if they will move the goalposts again given how dishonest they're being.

 

[Latteandaprayer]

Like... section meaning a subsection within the results? Or, the entire results section? If the first that may still be manageable. If the latter, that's absurd to expect a non-first/senior author to write an entire section.

And how impactful is this paper going to be?

What she sent:

1. Author: No financial compensation. The timeline will likely be until we can get this paper published (hopefully accepted by the end of this year or beginning of next). Your authorship will remain contingent on you fulfilling the following expectations:
   1. Be heavily involved in the manuscript writing process, taking responsibility for at least 1 entire section in addition to the discussion section.
   2. Following data analysis, contribute to the develop of themes and identification of appropriate supportive evidence that could be utilized in the final manuscript as excerpts (outside literature)
   3. Critically review and edit the final manuscript/abstract/presentations to insure adherence to best practices and data integrity
   4. Take accountability for the legitimacy of our scientific work and be involved in reviewing all submissions

 

[Latteandaprayer]

Unless this is an unusually impactful paper and/or you have no other potential PIs to work with, drop it. You're not that far in the hole, and who knows if they will move the goalposts again given how dishonest they're being.

Right now I have no one else, and since I’m about to start clerkships I’m worried I won’t be able to dedicate much time this year.

 

[wholeheartedly]

i have nothing to add other than that is shady AF.


Is this type of behavior something that should be flagged to someone else? saying you’ll compensate someone, then nope not if you want authorship, which there’s no relationship to, and then you’re not even guaranteed authorship?

 

[mvenus929]

Withholding pay for authorship is ridiculous, since PIs literally get paid to do research with grant funding. And get more grant funding for publishing more (obviously, simplified, but generally accurate).

 

[Dr Meow]

Right now I have no one else, and since I’m about to start clerkships I’m worried I won’t be able to dedicate much time this year.

You're in med school with 2 pubs and limited time. If this were like finding a job, you already hold some "FU" "money" because you have >0 pubs in your back pocket already. In other words- you don't need her risky research

If it were me, I wouldn't risk so much of my precious time on this. Since, she has ALREADY set it up for you to fail. You're about to start clerkships. You won't be able to fulfil her requirements and she knows that.

Even in good labs with good and reasonable PI, I've seen 3rd years quitting their research early because it was simply too much to balance to contrinute even bare minimum time at all. You got Step2 and lots of shelfs to study for.

 

[GoSpursGo]

What she sent:

1. Author: No financial compensation. The timeline will likely be until we can get this paper published (hopefully accepted by the end of this year or beginning of next). Your authorship will remain contingent on you fulfilling the following expectations:
   1. Be heavily involved in the manuscript writing process, taking responsibility for at least 1 entire section in addition to the discussion section.
   2. Following data analysis, contribute to the develop of themes and identification of appropriate supportive evidence that could be utilized in the final manuscript as excerpts (outside literature)
   3. Critically review and edit the final manuscript/abstract/presentations to insure adherence to best practices and data integrity
   4. Take accountability for the legitimacy of our scientific work and be involved in reviewing all submissions

I don't have much to add beyond what I already said. This does not jive with accepted authorship guidelines, either in the bar she is setting for authorship (primary drafting) or in forgoing financial compensation.

Right now I have no one else, and since I’m about to start clerkships I’m worried I won’t be able to dedicate much time this year.

What field are you considering? Unless you are considering a highly competitive field where you absolutely need to churn out a high number of publication (in which case you have to be careful about burning your only bridge), I'd really just drop this and focus on your clerkships. Plus I think there is a reasonable chance that if you quit she will realize that she can't actually do the project without you contributing your time to doing the analysis and thus she may miraculously discover that she can pay you and give you authorship.

Is this type of behavior something that should be flagged to someone else? saying you’ll compensate someone, then nope not if you want authorship, which there’s no relationship to, and then you’re not even guaranteed authorship?

Theoretically if the OP did the analysis and then later the paper was accepted without granting the OP authorship, they could complain to the journal. They then would need to do some sort of inquiry, which may or may not result in the OP getting added to the paper. This would really be a headache for all involved.

Could also be something to discuss either with dean at the med school or a personal mentor to get advice.

 

[Latteandaprayer]

I don't have much to add beyond what I already said. This does not jive with accepted authorship guidelines, either in the bar she is setting for authorship (primary drafting) or in forgoing financial compensation.

What field are you considering? Unless you are considering a highly competitive field where you absolutely need to churn out a high number of publication (in which case you have to be careful about burning your only bridge), I'd really just drop this and focus on your clerkships. Plus I think there is a reasonable chance that if you quit she will realize that she can't actually do the project without you contributing your time to doing the analysis and thus she may miraculously discover that she can pay you and give you authorship.

Theoretically if the OP did the analysis and then later the paper was accepted without granting the OP authorship, they could complain to the journal. They then would need to do some sort of inquiry, which may or may not result in the OP getting added to the paper. This would really be a headache for all involved.

Could also be something to discuss either with dean at the med school or a personal mentor to get advice.

Fields: IM (PC), FM, psychiatry, MAYBE Gen surg. I’m not super sure yet, hoping this year will clarify things. Overall I’m not going for Derm or Rads as of now.

 

[Latteandaprayer]

Withholding pay for authorship is ridiculous, since PIs literally get paid to do research with grant funding. And get more grant funding for publishing more (obviously, simplified, but generally accurate).

Yeah my two pubs were paid, this was a ridiculous thing for me to read. And frankly offensive.

 

[GoSpursGo]

Fields: IM (PC), FM, psychiatry, MAYBE Gen surg. I’m not super sure yet, hoping this year will clarify things. Overall I’m not going for Derm or Rads as of now.

Yeah IM (PC), FM and psych definitely will not care if you have this project. and if you decide to do gen surg you likely would want to get research that is more surgery focused.

I really would drop this research. This is completely unfair, and hopefully this PI will realize that their projects will not progress if they aren't valuing their team members.

 

[aldol16]

If you don't think you can balance the writing and analysis with the demands of clerkship, then don't take the authorship role. As you know from your experience, authorship is a meaningful role that conveys you had a substantial role in the analysis and writing of the manuscript. Writing a couple paragraphs ordinarily doesn't cut it. Some labs tend to put a lot of people on their manuscripts even if they had very limited roles in the project, but other labs just as justifiably make authorship more substantial.

 

[wholeheartedly]

I don't have much to add beyond what I already said. This does not jive with accepted authorship guidelines, either in the bar she is setting for authorship (primary drafting) or in forgoing financial compensation.

What field are you considering? Unless you are considering a highly competitive field where you absolutely need to churn out a high number of publication (in which case you have to be careful about burning your only bridge), I'd really just drop this and focus on your clerkships. Plus I think there is a reasonable chance that if you quit she will realize that she can't actually do the project without you contributing your time to doing the analysis and thus she may miraculously discover that she can pay you and give you authorship.

Theoretically if the OP did the analysis and then later the paper was accepted without granting the OP authorship, they could complain to the journal. They then would need to do some sort of inquiry, which may or may not result in the OP getting added to the paper. This would really be a headache for all involved.

Could also be something to discuss either with dean at the med school or a personal mentor to get advice.

I was thinking more the bait and switch on the paid no wait not paid if you want authorship thing and bringing it up to a mentor as a what should i do in this situation thing. Just so someone else in a higher level position knows this nonsense is going on.

I really wonder what her rationale is.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

Yeah IM (PC), FM and psych definitely will not care if you have this project. and if you decide to do gen surg you likely would want to get research that is more surgery focused.

I really would drop this research. This is completely unfair, and hopefully this PI will realize that their projects will not progress if they aren't valuing their team members.

How important is research for general surgery? I thought it wasn’t really necessary aside from maybe an experience here there

 

[ChordaEpiphany]

I got onto a paid project, but the PI sent an email to us saying that if we want authorship, we would have to forgo being paid and contribute a lot more to the project (understandably so). However, I’m starting clerkships now and I’m genuinely worried I won’t have time to do a good job writing the manuscript on top of analyzing hours of data and drawing “mini-conclusions.” If I don’t write, I don’t get authorship, and I’d have to write a substantial amount (not just a couple paragraphs or whatever).

I might just go for pay and an acknowledgment. I’m interested in IM or FM right now. I dropped the MSTP, so I want to make sure I still have some research to show I’m not disinterested.

For context, I came into med school with two first-authorships in basic science, so I’m no foreigner to the writing or publishing process.

Garbage PI. Is there anyone else?

Be heavily involved for authorship. Reasonable. Forego pay. Completely unreasonable.

This is a cheap PI, probably poorly funded, who saves money by pushing students to work for free in exchange for authorship they might not even get. Wouldn't be surprised if you write plenty and still get stiffed.

Find a new PI. People are on these forums talking about 10+ manuscripts for minimal effort. Clinical research isn't anything like basic science. This should be a walk in the park for you. No need to make it harder on yourself working with this extortionist.

 

[Latteandaprayer]

Garbage PI. Is there anyone else?

Be heavily involved for authorship. Reasonable. Forego pay. Completely unreasonable.

This is a cheap PI, probably poorly funded, who saves money by pushing students to work for free in exchange for authorship they might not even get. Wouldn't be surprised if you write plenty and still get stiffed.

Find a new PI. People are on these forums talking about 10+ manuscripts for minimal effort. Clinical research isn't anything like basic science. This should be a walk in the park for you. No need to make it harder on yourself working with this extortionist.

I’m just worried I won’t be able to get anything else this year. I have no research in med school. I’m starting clinicals now too

 

[ChordaEpiphany]

I’m just worried I won’t be able to get anything else this year. I have no research in med school. I’m starting clinicals now too

Look around now. I just don't see the benefit. If this is going to be huge effort for maybe one paper or just an acknowledgement... what's the point of you're going into PC or psych? You have research from prior to med school (substantial research at that). I think you'd be better off acing your clinicals, personally. Try to find attendings you like who publish frequently and do a small project with them.

I've made the mistake of just accepting a toxic situation far too many times. It's tough to see when you're diving head first into one, but easy to see when others are. I'm pretty sure you're signing yourself up for disappointment.

 

[Hzreio]

Pretty unethical, as most other comments have pointed out. If you’re contributing enough to be listed as an author, you should be listed as an author. Pay has nothing to do with authorship requirement

 

[GoSpursGo]

I was thinking more the bait and switch on the paid no wait not paid if you want authorship thing and bringing it up to a mentor as a what should i do in this situation thing. Just so someone else in a higher level position knows this nonsense is going on.

I really wonder what her rationale is.

Yeah would be reasonable to discuss with mentor.

There is some idea within some corners of academia that you need to give as little credit as possible to maximize your own perceived importance. This seems so short sighted. People who willingly help and include others will get included in other projects in turn. I've happily submitted multiple publications with 20, even 30 authors, because you need that many authors to get things done.

How important is research for general surgery? I thought it wasn’t really necessary aside from maybe an experience here there

It's really not necessary, but it certainly helps. GS is a cut above the others in terms of competitiveness and I'm not really sure what the landscape looks like in a P/F step 1 world.

 

[ChordaEpiphany]

Yeah would be reasonable to discuss with mentor.

There is some idea within some corners of academia that you need to give as little credit as possible to maximize your own perceived importance. This seems so short sighted. People who willingly help and include others will get included in other projects in turn. I've happily submitted multiple publications with 20, even 30 authors, because you need that many authors to get things done.

One of my PhD PIs has this idea. He's got a Cell paper that's literally just a grad student and the PIs, despite a lot of support work that went on. He thinks extra authorship dilutes the contribution of the primary author... 🙄

In reality it makes people not want to contribute to other projects or help others in lab. I made a cell line for a project a while ago, discussed the use and characterization of the cell line with the first author, and just found out their paper was accepted at a journal with impact factor ~40. Unsurprisingly, despite that whole process taking about a month (granted, part-time) and a lot of technical expertise, I was not even acknowledged. Grad students have to fight him to get their undergrads included, even if they've been helping for years.

I have another PI who is more liberal with authorship and I sometimes spend days in the offices and lab around there just to see who I can help out. It's netted me 3 manuscripts so far and the first author gets data. Win-win.

Where it gets frustrating is the hanger-ons/collaborators who try to use your pubs to promote their mentees. If you contribute literally nothing, I'm really uncomfortable with you parading around the culmination of 5 years of my work as your big contribution to science in your fellowship application. I once asked the surgical resident of an attending we collaborate with if they could throw a single stitch into a material. I asked not because I couldn't do it, but because we didn't have the right sutures in our lab. They put the stitch in, which took 15 seconds, and I took the material back to take some pictures for the supplement. When it came time to publish, suddenly not offering the resident authorship for their 15 second contribution was a scandal. It's frustrating because I can think of 100+ people who have contributed more. Pretty sure my cat offered me more of his time and inspired more scientific insight.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

One of my PhD PIs has this idea. He's got a Cell paper that's literally just a grad student and the PIs, despite a lot of support work that went on. He thinks extra authorship dilutes the contribution of the primary author... 🙄

In reality it makes people not want to contribute to other projects or help others in lab. I made a cell line for a project a while ago, discussed the use and characterization of the cell line with the first author, and just found out their paper was accepted at a journal with impact factor ~40. Unsurprisingly, despite that whole process taking about a month (granted, part-time) and a lot of technical expertise, I was not even acknowledged. Grad students have to fight him to get their undergrads included, even if they've been helping for years.

I have another PI who is more liberal with authorship and I sometimes spend days in the offices and lab around there just to see who I can help out. It's netted me 3 manuscripts so far and the first author gets data. Win-win.

Where it gets frustrating is the hanger-ons/collaborators who try to use your pubs to promote their mentees. If you contribute literally nothing, I'm really uncomfortable with you parading around the culmination of 5 years of my work as your big contribution to science in your fellowship application. I once asked the surgical resident of an attending we collaborate with if they could throw a single stitch into a material. I asked not because I couldn't do it, but because we didn't have the right sutures in our lab. They put the stitch in, which took 15 seconds, and I took the material back to take some pictures for the supplement. When it came time to publish, suddenly not offering the resident authorship for their 15 second contribution was a scandal. It's frustrating because I can think of 100+ people who have contributed more. Pretty sure my cat offered me more of his time and inspired more scientific insight.

I feel like being liberal with authorship (assuming it’s not extreme) only helps the institution. In the context of medical school, more faculty who are liberal with authorship = more student authors = better residency placements

 

[Lawpy]

I feel like being liberal with authorship (assuming it’s not extreme) only helps the institution. In the context of medical school, more faculty who are liberal with authorship = more student authors = better residency placements

That’s the ideal strategy. Being too strict with authorship helps no one and just makes people not want to work with you

 

[Lawpy]

I got onto a paid project, but the PI sent an email to us saying that if we want authorship, we would have to forgo being paid and contribute a lot more to the project (understandably so). However, I’m starting clerkships now and I’m genuinely worried I won’t have time to do a good job writing the manuscript on top of analyzing hours of data and drawing “mini-conclusions.” If I don’t write, I don’t get authorship, and I’d have to write a substantial amount (not just a couple paragraphs or whatever).

I might just go for pay and an acknowledgment. I’m interested in IM or FM right now. I dropped the MSTP, so I want to make sure I still have some research to show I’m not disinterested.

For context, I came into med school with two first-authorships in basic science, so I’m no foreigner to the writing or publishing process.

No, it’s a waste of time. Ditch the PI and find someone better

 

[Hzreio]

That’s the ideal strategy. Being too strict with authorship helps no one and just makes people not want to work with you

I feel like it’s an ego thing

 

[GoSpursGo]

One of my PhD PIs has this idea. He's got a Cell paper that's literally just a grad student and the PIs, despite a lot of support work that went on. He thinks extra authorship dilutes the contribution of the primary author... 🙄

In reality it makes people not want to contribute to other projects or help others in lab. I made a cell line for a project a while ago, discussed the use and characterization of the cell line with the first author, and just found out their paper was accepted at a journal with impact factor ~40. Unsurprisingly, despite that whole process taking about a month (granted, part-time) and a lot of technical expertise, I was not even acknowledged. Grad students have to fight him to get their undergrads included, even if they've been helping for years.

I have another PI who is more liberal with authorship and I sometimes spend days in the offices and lab around there just to see who I can help out. It's netted me 3 manuscripts so far and the first author gets data. Win-win.

Where it gets frustrating is the hanger-ons/collaborators who try to use your pubs to promote their mentees. If you contribute literally nothing, I'm really uncomfortable with you parading around the culmination of 5 years of my work as your big contribution to science in your fellowship application. I once asked the surgical resident of an attending we collaborate with if they could throw a single stitch into a material. I asked not because I couldn't do it, but because we didn't have the right sutures in our lab. They put the stitch in, which took 15 seconds, and I took the material back to take some pictures for the supplement. When it came time to publish, suddenly not offering the resident authorship for their 15 second contribution was a scandal. It's frustrating because I can think of 100+ people who have contributed more. Pretty sure my cat offered me more of his time and inspired more scientific insight.

This idea is so asinine. “Well he’s got a first author cell paper, but there were 20 other authors so he probably didn’t do much” -nobody

 

[ChordaEpiphany]

I feel like it’s an ego thing

It's a few things in my experience.

1) PIs who insist on strict authorship criteria over industry precedent. Strict authorship criteria being "you must do substantial writing and contribute intellectually to the core idea/conclusions," and industry precedent being, "you contributed data, writing, funds, etc..."

2) Grad students/post-docs who don't want to be outshined and don't want to offer opportunity to others around them.

1 is just ineffective protest. You punish your trainees while the rest of the world moves on. 2 is human nature and it's in every lab.

During the COVID shutdown, a core microscope was restricted to one user per lab. That user wound up taking all images for publication from that machine for about 1.5 years. It was maybe an extra 15-30 minutes of work per week capturing very trivial images. They contributed 0 to the projects, just snapped the image and sent the raw data to the 1st author. However, they were insistent on being an author on all these papers. They got on about 8-9 papers that way, which in engineering is a ton of papers. Needless to say, people were salty about it. I think people go out of their way to not include this person on their pubs now because it felt so unjust.

I'm currently dealing with a particularly overzealous grad student trying to literally write me out of a 3rd author paper that was submitted and then rejected years ago. There's a lot to unpack there, but the kid is... intense, and I think he sees me as competition. I think his ego can only handle being the absolute best grad student in the lab. The PI gave him and another student the project to finish. He went as far as re-writing the entire paper and specifically excluding my data. Neither the PI or the original 1st author are going to stand for that, but it's pretty illustrative of the emotions that run through a lab.

This idea is so asinine. “Well he’s got a first author cell paper, but there were 20 other authors so he probably didn’t do much” -nobody

Exactly. Everyone knows authorship contribution basically declines exponentially as you go down the list, even more in basic science than in clinical pubs. A first author paper in CNS is years of meticulous work. Second author is a part-time role, maybe 10 hours/week for a year or so. By the time you're on the 10th author we're talking about contributions that range from a single afternoon of work to inclusion for political reasons.

We should just start separating 1st author from mid-author pubs and (maybe most importantly) separate intellectual from technical contribution. The "throw everyone in an arbitrary list" thing makes no sense to me and just causes a bunch of bickering.

 

[GoSpursGo]

It's a few things in my experience.

1) PIs who insist on strict authorship criteria over industry precedent. Strict authorship criteria being "you must do substantial writing and contribute intellectually to the core idea/conclusions," and industry precedent being, "you contributed data, writing, funds, etc..."

2) Grad students/post-docs who don't want to be outshined and don't want to offer opportunity to others around them.

1 is just ineffective protest. You punish your trainees while the rest of the world moves on. 2 is human nature and it's in every lab.

During the COVID shutdown, a core microscope was restricted to one user per lab. That user wound up taking all images for publication from that machine for about 1.5 years. It was maybe an extra 15-30 minutes of work per week capturing very trivial images. They contributed 0 to the projects, just snapped the image and sent the raw data to the 1st author. However, they were insistent on being an author on all these papers. They got on about 8-9 papers that way, which in engineering is a ton of papers. Needless to say, people were salty about it. I think people go out of their way to not include this person on their pubs now because it felt so unjust.

I'm currently dealing with a particularly overzealous grad student trying to literally write me out of a 3rd author paper that was submitted and then rejected years ago. There's a lot to unpack there, but the kid is... intense, and I think he sees me as competition. I think his ego can only handle being the absolute best grad student in the lab. The PI gave him and another student the project to finish. He went as far as re-writing the entire paper and specifically excluding my data. Neither the PI or the original 1st author are going to stand for that, but it's pretty illustrative of the emotions that run through a lab.

2 is still dumb. Ultimately it doesn't matter if you're "the best." It matters whether or not you can get funding. If everybody contributes to every project, then what does it matter if one person has 10 pubs and the other has 8 if they both get grants?

Exactly. Everyone knows authorship contribution basically declines exponentially as you go down the list, even more in basic science than in clinical pubs. A first author paper in CNS is years of meticulous work. Second author is a part-time role, maybe 10 hours/week for a year or so. By the time you're on the 10th author we're talking about contributions that range from a single afternoon of work to inclusion for political reasons.

We should just start separating 1st author from mid-author pubs and (maybe most importantly) separate intellectual from technical contribution. The "throw everyone in an arbitrary list" thing makes no sense to me and just causes a bunch of bickering.

Theoretically, this should start happening with CRediT taxonomy: https://www.cell.com/pb/assets/raw/shared/guidelines/CRediT-taxonomy.pdf . I've recently had to be much more detailed in my author contributions sections. Lots of senior people getting "conceptualization" or "resources" or "supervision."

 

[ChordaEpiphany]

2 is still dumb. Ultimately it doesn't matter if you're "the best." It matters whether or not you can get funding. If everybody contributes to every project, then what does it matter if one person has 10 pubs and the other has 8 if they both get grants?

Yeah it makes no sense. I'm liberal with my authorships so others will be liberal with me. Most PhD students have no interest in academia though. They want pharma, biotech, consulting, VC, etc... One of my PIs is extremely toxic. Students like the one I described above crave his praise and attention, because he's very sparing with both, and he loves to go on self-righteous rants about his 12 paper PhD and how some students can hack it and others can't. It's not about getting a grant. It's about getting his approval along with the necessary accolades to impress big 3 consulting firms or top biotech/pharma companies and get on a management track. Another good reason for OP not to hop in bed with a toxic PI. It brings out the worst in people.

 

[SurfingDoctor]

This whole thing is a mess. If you don't get authorship, there's no point to doing research for someone else.

Putting trainees or colleagues who helped do work in the "Acknowledgements" section is the tell tale sign of a PI who just sucks as a person.

 

[SurfingDoctor]

Also, since we are on the topic, I generally consider first and last authors the only people who contributed anything meaningful to a paper. This is true when I evaluate "productivity" of applicants in study sections (which granted, won't apply to most here). There are way too many gift authorships (of which I am guilty of providing myself, admittingly). But the first and last author spots generally (and the corresponding author) generally had some stake in the game. The rest of the authors could easily have done nothing and contributed nothing, even with an author contribution section. It's too easy to fake, make up or outright lie. But then again, promotion committees can only count numbers, not contribution.

Issues like this highlight the problems of "authorship" in academic journals:

Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days

To highlight uncertain norms in authorship, John P. A. Ioannidis, Richard Klavans and Kevin W. Boyack identified the most prolific scientists of recent years.

www.nature.com

Physics paper sets record with more than 5,000 authors - Nature

Detector teams at the Large Hadron Collider collaborated for a more precise estimate of the size of the Higgs boson.

www.nature.com

 

[wholeheartedly]

Also, since we are on the topic, I generally consider first and last authors the only people who contributed anything meaningful to a paper. This is true when I evaluate "productivity" of applicants in study sections (which granted, won't apply to most here). There are way too many gift authorships (of which I am guilty of providing myself, admittingly). But the first and last author spots generally (and the corresponding author) generally had some stake in the game. The rest of the authors could easily have done nothing and contributed nothing, even with an author contribution section. It's too easy to fake, make up or outright lie. But then again, promotion committees can only count numbers, not contribution.

Issues like this highlight the problems of "authorship" in academic journals:

Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days

To highlight uncertain norms in authorship, John P. A. Ioannidis, Richard Klavans and Kevin W. Boyack identified the most prolific scientists of recent years.

www.nature.com

Physics paper sets record with more than 5,000 authors - Nature

Detector teams at the Large Hadron Collider collaborated for a more precise estimate of the size of the Higgs boson.

www.nature.com

I dunno, I watched on documentary on these CERN projects. It truly is a massive number of people engaged in pretty science heavy key components of these projects. It’s not like thousands of people doing the equivalent of washing glassware. They’re just really massive projects.

 

[GoSpursGo]

Also, since we are on the topic, I generally consider first and last authors the only people who contributed anything meaningful to a paper. This is true when I evaluate "productivity" of applicants in study sections (which granted, won't apply to most here). There are way too many gift authorships (of which I am guilty of providing myself, admittingly). But the first and last author spots generally (and the corresponding author) generally had some stake in the game. The rest of the authors could easily have done nothing and contributed nothing, even with an author contribution section. It's too easy to fake, make up or outright lie. But then again, promotion committees can only count numbers, not contribution.

Issues like this highlight the problems of "authorship" in academic journals:

Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days

To highlight uncertain norms in authorship, John P. A. Ioannidis, Richard Klavans and Kevin W. Boyack identified the most prolific scientists of recent years.

www.nature.com

Physics paper sets record with more than 5,000 authors - Nature

Detector teams at the Large Hadron Collider collaborated for a more precise estimate of the size of the Higgs boson.

www.nature.com

First of all, I generally assume that the second author probably did something meaningful. More often than not, there is a reason that person rose to the top of the list of "middle authors."

Beyond that I think it depends on the paper and the author. If it's a Cell paper, you can bet that the first 3-5 authors all likely contributed at least one full figure to the manuscript. For a clinical trial where you're reporting some of the correlative science, then the middle authors likely each did exactly one experiment or took care of patients. If you're talking about a medium-low impact retrospective chart review, then the middle authors probably did next to nothing, but those papers are essentially meaningless for promotion anyways. While "gift authorship" is a thing, unless someone is really doing something ridiculous like publishing every 5 days I generally assume they had some reasonable contribution to the work unless it's a paper that literally doesn't matter.

This is pretty tangential to the original question of med student publishing, but those are my thoughts

 

[SurfingDoctor]

First of all, I generally assume that the second author probably did something meaningful. More often than not, there is a reason that person rose to the top of the list of "middle authors."

Beyond that I think it depends on the paper and the author. If it's a Cell paper, you can bet that the first 3-5 authors all likely contributed at least one full figure to the manuscript. For a clinical trial where you're reporting some of the correlative science, then the middle authors likely each did exactly one experiment or took care of patients. If you're talking about a medium-low impact retrospective chart review, then the middle authors probably did next to nothing, but those papers are essentially meaningless for promotion anyways. While "gift authorship" is a thing, unless someone is really doing something ridiculous like publishing every 5 days I generally assume they had some reasonable contribution to the work unless it's a paper that literally doesn't matter.

This is pretty tangential to the original question of med student publishing, but those are my thoughts

Maybe. I'm still not convinced. In fact, the large number of "studies" done during COVID where someone created a multi-institutional dataset (that of course, didn't really lead to anything of value), but then milked it for every drop has more confirmed my belief.

Not to say that the other authors didn't contribute at some point, they probably did, but a large amount of those publications have the same 20+ middle authors over and over. There's no real authorship in any of that, it's just a lot of academic back-patting.

I would also disagree that middle authorship doesn't mean anything for promotion. It very much does, with the caveat that it depends on the field and ones institutional role and most importantly, the institute. But in the end, promotion committees can mostly count publications and nothing more. I certainly have know people get to full professor with probably less than 10 to 20 first/last author publications, but 150+ middle author publications. Their biggest contribution to those middle author publications was that they knew the senior author. And this is of course different from NIH study sections where first and last author spots are really all that matter. One can't be considered an idea generator if one is the middle author on a bunch of publications.

Of course, this is all irrelevant in the context of student publications, where something is better than nothing, no matter where you fall on the list.

 

[TelemarketingEnigma]

Continuing the off topic direction but I think context (and field) really matters for giant author lists - before med school I was involved with some large consortium studies for work that produced papers with sometimes like 100 authors. Those were usually large flagship papers that summarized a huge amount of work - which really would not have been possible without the many people involved. Some people worked with participants, some developed new software directly for the project, some analyzed data, some provided intellectual direction. These involved multiple institutions and many layers of effort, so the absurd number of authors was legit. But the same studies also produced a lot of smaller side papers - those usually had far fewer authors, limited to people who worked on that specific section of the project, and would have been weird to include dozens of only vaguely related people. Sometimes the author list would include acknowledgement of the associated consortium if journal formatting allowed it (at minimum, in the text) with just a handful of actually named authors. Something that’s purely chart review and doesn’t include those many layers of work I mentioned also probably doesn’t need dozens of authors, but contributing students deserve true credit for their work.

Relatedly, I think the projects I described above did a pretty good job of using acknowledgments correctly - that’s usually where my name ended up, because my job most of the time was providing more logistic/organizational support than intellectual contribution. They needed my help to get work done and papers published, and i appreciated credit for that, but I didn’t expect authorship for things I didn’t contribute to in that way. for things where I did contribute to the actual research and writing, I got appropriate authorship (while still getting paid). Refusing pay for authorship and trying to swap it for “acknowledgement” is a huge scam.

 

[GoSpursGo]

Bringing this full circle and making this discussion relevant to med students again—this whole thing if not paying for or recognizing intellectual input through money and/or authorship would totally not fly on a PI to PU level. If I was put as a co-I on a grant with 5% of my salary supported from it, and the other person got the grant as the PI decided to try and take my effort off—I’m not doing the work and that’s the end of our collaboration, plain and simple.

This is a case of a PI trying to take advantage of you because you’re in a vulnerable position as a med student, plain and simple. Really slimy. Hope you can find someone else to work with

 

[Mr.Smile12]

Whether one is an undergraduate, a graduate, or a medical/professional student, if you are doing research and took the time to be properly trained by the institutional research office (human research ethics/consent and IRB, radioactivity or blood-borne pathogens, etc.), you should get paid for your time and being properly oriented to the research. Even people who do freelance jobs for editing papers and such get paid to ghost-write in exchange for giving up the right to be an author. Just as we want internships in political offices and the corporate world to be paid, the PI's and the student research office should make sure you are properly protected.