my photos = name on case report?

[stormjen]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I took a bunch of photos of slides for a clinical resident so he can publish a case report. Is it standard practice to list whoever took the photos as a co-author, or to at least acknowledge them? It's just a case report, but it's still something to put on my CV. I'd hate to have my photos published and not get credit. What's the standard practice?

 

[DarksideAllstar]

I would push for at least an acknowledgment. If not, I wouldnt give em the pics.

 

[sohsie]

I took a bunch of photos of slides for a clinical resident so he can publish a case report. Is it standard practice to list whoever took the photos as a co-author, or to at least acknowledge them? It's just a case report, but it's still something to put on my CV. I'd hate to have my photos published and not get credit. What's the standard practice?

Standar practice is that your name goes on as an author if you take the pictures. However, the clinical resident probably won't think to do it unless you insist. Withhold your permission to use the pictures if he doesn't agree.

 

[frogs]

I took a bunch of photos of slides for a clinical resident so he can publish a case report. Is it standard practice to list whoever took the photos as a co-author, or to at least acknowledge them? It's just a case report, but it's still something to put on my CV. I'd hate to have my photos published and not get credit. What's the standard practice?

Your kindness in providing a convenience and tech-like service in taking pictures for a resident is MAYBE worth an acknowledgment at BEST and that would be at the discression of the resident and his "sponsoring faculty". Be realistic, you simply took some pictures... It does not sound like you founded, postulated or contributed any scientific thoughts or research toward the case, which would be a different story and potentially worthy of a co-authorship.

While, yes, it would be great to get your name on a publication, do not dilute the "prestige" (if you will) of authorship ~ it is unethical to ride on someone elses scientific skirt-tails without a significant novel contribution.

During your residency you are bound to come across something in which you can be a real author and can without question defend to experts what is written in the publication, not just discuss how the pictures were taken.

Sorry, next time save yourself time and effort and consider showing the resident how to take his own pictures!

 

[sohsie]

Your kindness in providing a convenience and tech-like service in taking pictures for a resident is MAYBE worth an acknowledgment at BEST and that would be at the discression of the resident and his "sponsoring faculty". Be realistic, you simply took some pictures... It does not sound like you founded, postulated or contributed any scientific thoughts or research toward the case, which would be a different story and potentially worthy of a co-authorship.

While, yes, it would be great to get your name on a publication, do not dilute the "prestige" (if you will) of authorship ~ it is unethical to ride on someone elses scientific skirt-tails without a significant novel contribution.

During your residency you are bound to come across something in which you can be a real author and can without question defend to experts what is written in the publication, not just discuss how the pictures were taken.

Sorry, next time save yourself time and effort and consider showing the resident how to take his own pictures!

StormJen, Aren't you glad to know that you just spent four years of med school and obscene amounts of money to be provide "tech-like services". Don't fall for this garbage. You put your considerable time and effort into this (taking publishable quality photos is not easy). Insist on being an author or let them take their own pictures. I would also edit their path description while you're at it.

 

[simonsays]

I take great exception to the phrase "tech-like." If it's so easy, why can't these clinical imbeciles take their own pictures? Certainly it nets you nothing but a half hour or more agonizing over the lighting, the contrast, making sure the color balance is right and taking quality pictures of the correct pathology. I've been in this situation many times before (and most of the clinicians involved are imbeciles who really only regard what you do as "tech-like") and I don't have a good answer. To be honest I don't think it's too much to ask to be listed as an author, considering that many of these papers have multiple, multiple authors. But, I would probably be happy with an acknowledgement, which is the least we deserve for our time and expertise. In the end, I've just been happy to get the clinician off my back and go back to my own work.

 

[torero]

I took a bunch of photos of slides for a clinical resident so he can publish a case report. Is it standard practice to list whoever took the photos as a co-author, or to at least acknowledge them? It's just a case report, but it's still something to put on my CV. I'd hate to have my photos published and not get credit. What's the standard practice?

Stormjen - The minute you accpet the "technical" task of taking histology pictures will be the minute you accept being treated as a technician. Providing relevant histology images takes years to master, not to mention an MD. If this were a cell paper, then an acknowledgement would be in order. Being a case report, there is no question you should be considered an author. If the resident disagrees just hand him the glass. Just be nice and don't give him a slide with a ganglion... though on second thought readers of clinical journals will probably not notice! 🙂

 

[LADoc00]

I took a bunch of photos of slides for a clinical resident so he can publish a case report. Is it standard practice to list whoever took the photos as a co-author, or to at least acknowledge them? It's just a case report, but it's still something to put on my CV. I'd hate to have my photos published and not get credit. What's the standard practice?

This is simple, basically ask UP FRONT whether you will be a coauthor, anything less and I refused in residency. It worked well, I soaked up a nice number of pubs for less an hour investment each. I had a resident try to seduce me once for digi pics as well, almost worked too, luckily the force is strong within me.

 

[frogs]

It's unfortuante that this group seems to concentrate on the symantics of the wording (ie "tech-like"), rather than the actual issue. This terminology is not used to belittle Stormjen. However, from her description of the scenario, she took pictures, that is the bottomline until we are told otherwise. Granted, the photos may very well be of professional quality, but she still merely took pictures. There are several aspects to this authorship issue:

1. She allowed her time and efforts to be capitalized on, seemingly without clarifying the conditions of the task she was preforming. If a co-authorship was something she wanted in return for the photo service that should have been discussed thoroughly up front. She could have said no thanks, or gave a quicky lesson on how to take the pictures (which is what we often do to avoid the imposition of our time).

2. If she wants to be an author, she should have a comfortable knowledge of the subject material above the brightness/contrast/resolution, etc. This is important because someday someone will ask her about her publication and if she cannot describe and defend her work, it could cost her on a bigger scale, potentially a job.

3. If she were to write the descriptions and be ultimately responsible for the microscopic description in the text, that is a totally different level of contribution which demonstrates her knowledge and thought of case and would indeed be worthy of a co-authorship.

4. Do not be so self-absorbed as to think that we are "elite" because we were at some point trained on how to work the photography equipment. The clinician could have sent the slides to a photography studio. That photographer would not have gotten a co-authorship. Heck, if that were the case, you mise well add the person who grossed the specimen and the histology "technician" that cut the section to the authorship list (hence DILUTING the prestige of authorship, no??).

In the end, photos are taken all the time for clinicans for use in presentations, conferences, etc. Like it or not, as residents, we are the low ones on the totem pole and occassionally are asked to assist with supportive services such as taking pictures (I get this at least 2-6 times a week). It is not because the clinicans are "imbeciles" as someone stated earlier, but because in our line of work, we happen to be trained at preforming this task as compared to the clinican. Photography is an aspect we do because we are kind and helpful; consider it a pro-bono service unless otherwise discussed/specified.

Sorry, but I would pass on this opportunity.
Take it as a learning experience for next time.

 

[simonsays]

Yes, you can teach them how to use the photography equipment, but the vast majority of them will have no idea what to take pictures of. You can send it to the photography department, as we had resolved to do at my institution, but you are left with the same problem (plus the authors balked at the fact that they now had to pay for this service). I think that taking photos goes beyond lighting, focus and resolution, but you certainly have to take those things, which amount to your time, into account. Lots of people get their names on publications for contributing far less than reviewing the case(s) and taking photographs. I agree that these issues should be worked out ahead of time, but I just don't think it's too much to ask. If you are planning on an academic career and are building your CV with these kinds of publications (I'm not implying stormjen is), then you will have a lot of problems. However, in general, what really matter are your first author publications, so if you have a couple of publications on your CV that you contributed less to, it really shouldn't make much difference. I think I was offended by the idea that we are not really providing a professional service when we take photographs and that we should be, in some sense, lucky if they throw us a bone like giving us an acknowledgment. It is, after all, only a case report. I have a hard time imagining the authors themselves have labored over this endeavor.

 

[E.A. Poe]

I'm an M-2 but have about 5 years of non-PhD track research experience with 4 publications including one first authorship paper. The answer to your question, OP, obviously depends on who you ask. The short answer is two fold: 1) If you contributed to a publication, and the work that you did involved a unique contribution that the other authors would not have been able to have performed then you are eligible for co-authorship, 2) People who follow the old-school ideal of strict criteria for who is considered an author (like 1950-1970 era maybe?) will not think you did enough to be an author, THE REST OF THE RESEARCH WORLD does.

There are many, many cases where a relatively minor contribution in the overall scope of the paper has resulted in authorship, albeit a lower order on the paper, excluding the final spot reserved for the PI or whatever the clinical equivalent is. On my third publication the lead author sent EM samples to a guy in Germany who did all the work, perhaps even fixing fresh samples, imaging, and sent the photos back to us in the US. He ended up being fourth author for that because we couldn't do it. He didn't think of anything new or contribute anything novel other than confirming what we thought we'd see w/ EM and his images were included in the paper. He also didn't get his name on the patent (if you wonder, neither did I 🙁 ). Have you heard about all of these high-powered PI's who somehow crank out at least 1 paper a month and have authored 100's of papers? It's not because they were heavily active on EVERY project. Sometimes they just sent a vial of cells that the lead authors needed to complete the work, or they had a unique plasmid that they gave to the ppl working on the project, and in some cases it's just plain politics where someone wants to gain a friend by including them in authorship. Have you seen the papers describing the sequences of the chromosomes coming from the Human Genome Project? There's literally 30 authors on some of those. These things happen, not for me yet, but if they did you bet I'd jump at the opportunity to add to my CV.

All of these things happen because science, and clincical medicine IS science, is made up of a community where everyone realizes that you can't sit by yourself in your castle dungeon with all of your crazy beakers and bubbling concoctions anymore and win the Nobel prize. If you do you can't get **** done and everyone will beat you to the discoveries. The spirit of reasonable openness and sharing with collaborators and the scientific community in general is what gave rise to the requirement of publishing your work if you get NIH funding, and hence pubmed.

There are obviously people who have a different outlook but they are fewer and I think you'll see that most, but not all, of these people will achieve less publication-wise. When I read frogs second response I swore he was a moldy old clinician, but he's entitled to his opinion. This was only reinforced by this statement:

Take it as a learning experience for next time.

Gee, thanks!

I hope you tell them that you'd like co-authorship and withhold the images if they decline. It would be best to tell them of your requirement in advance but since you didn't know to ask, as everyone has to learn about this somewhere, START NOW. Your CV will thank you. However if these guys put out a ton of papers and they decline, maybe tell them you'll give them a freebee this once but you'd be very interested in collaborating with them in the future. Also, photo credits alone are completely worthless professionally.

 

[LADoc00]

It's unfortuante that this group seems to concentrate on the symantics of the wording (ie "tech-like"), rather than the actual issue. This terminology is not used to belittle Stormjen. However, from her description of the scenario, she took pictures, that is the bottomline until we are told otherwise. Granted, the photos may very well be of professional quality, but she still merely took pictures. There are several aspects to this authorship issue:

1. She allowed her time and efforts to be capitalized on, seemingly without clarifying the conditions of the task she was preforming. If a co-authorship was something she wanted in return for the photo service that should have been discussed thoroughly up front. She could have no thanks, or gave a quicky lesson on how to take the pictures (which is what we often do to avoid the imposition of our time).

2. If she wants to be an author, she should have a comfortable knowledge of the subject material above the brightness/contrast/resolution, etc. This is important because someday someone will ask her about her publication and if she cannot describe and defend her work, it could cost her on a bigger scale, potentially a job.

3. If she were to write the descriptions and be ultimately responsible for the microscopic description in the text, that is a totally different level of contribution which demonstrates her knowledge and thought of case and would indeed be worthy of a co-authorship.

4. Do not be so self-absorbed as to think that we are "elite" because we were at some point trained on how to work the photography equipment. The clinician could have sent the slides to a photography studio. That photographer would not have gotten a co-authorship. Heck, if that were the case, you mise well add the person who grossed the specimen and the histology "technician" that cut the section to the authorship list (hence DILUTING the prestige of authorship, no??).

In the end, photos are taken all the time for clinicans for use in presentations, conferences, etc. Like it or not, as residents, we are the low ones on the totem pole and occassionally are asked to assist with supportive services such as taking pictures (I get this at least 2-6 times a week). It is not because the clinicans are "imbeciles" as someone stated earlier, but because in our line of work, we happen to be trained at preforming this task as compared to the clinican. Photography is an aspect we do because we are kind and helpful

I completely disagree, for starters not all of us are "kind and helpful", if I was truly 'kind and friggin helpful' I wouldve gone into Peds or better yet been a Starbucks barista.

Secondly, this is beyond the pic taking. Assuming you made the diagnosis for the case you are taking pics of (you would have to be a real sucka to be shooting someone else's case), clinicians are publishing this rare (I assume case report thing) entity because YOU told them that what is.

They are leeching off your knowledge fund and diagnostic ability, pure and simple. If I crack a rare lung primary synovial sarcoma, I shouldnt have to write a damn thing! I did the heavy lifting already, seriously they should feel honored to put you on their pub in fact you should demand to be first author as any monkey with 5 fingers can type up case report in 2 hours!!

I once explored the idea when I was foolishly thinking of going into acacrapdemics, of getting like a dozen premeds sold on the idea of tons of publications for med admins by having these little powder monkeys write up tons of case reports w/ lit reviews on all my rare to semi-rare resident cases. It was a brilliant idea really and a win-win for both of us.

 

[yaah]

Yeah - simply taking pictures probably isn't going to get you anything. A lot of times though they will also ask you to provide a pathologic comment, like a description of the findings and a brief statement related to pathologic significance, etc.

It often isn't a lot of work to take brief pictures of slides, but the truth is some clinical residents will take advantage of it. When I have been asked they usually tell me up front they will include me as an author.

 

[yaah]

If I crack a rare lung primary synovial sarcoma, I shouldnt have to write a damn thing!

On a semi-related note - we had a resection specimen today - radical penectomy in a guy with a penile synovial sarcoma. OW.

Glad I don't have to gross in that mofo.

 

[stormjen]

Yikes, talk about a kettle of worms. I thought it was a pretty straightforward question, but I guess it's a little more complicated than I'd expected. I did not ask the clinical resident up front whether I would be listed as co-author, because frankly that was the impression I got from him, so I didn't bother to clarify. Now I'm curious though and wondered what the standard practice is. Apparently standard practice varies.

I will be more careful clarifying my role in the future. I am happy to assist clinicians as much as I can, showing them slides, taking photos, answering their questions, whatever. But my time is limited, and I want to be recognized for my efforts when a publication is involved. I do not plan to build my CV with OPCRs (other people's case reports), but as the topic of this case report is in my sub-specialty of interest, I feel it can only help to add it on there. I certainly have other real research I am working on too.

Moral of the story: clarify in writing up front. Good to know.

And, by the way, the woman who runs our immunohistochemical staining department gets her name on publications all the time, and she certainly doesn't write them.

 

[dermpathdoc]

Now when you are an attending..be sure to tell them..no pics unless you get an author crredit or at the very least and note at the end of article thanking you for providing the photos. Each pic should also have a note which says you took the picture...after all you had to take the time out of your busy practice to take those pictures so the poor poor resdinet could get an article in his resume.

Your kindness in providing a convenience and tech-like service in taking pictures for a resident is MAYBE worth an acknowledgment at BEST and that would be at the discression of the resident and his "sponsoring faculty". Be realistic, you simply took some pictures... It does not sound like you founded, postulated or contributed any scientific thoughts or research toward the case, which would be a different story and potentially worthy of a co-authorship.

While, yes, it would be great to get your name on a publication, do not dilute the "prestige" (if you will) of authorship ~ it is unethical to ride on someone elses scientific skirt-tails without a significant novel contribution.

During your residency you are bound to come across something in which you can be a real author and can without question defend to experts what is written in the publication, not just discuss how the pictures were taken.

Sorry, next time save yourself time and effort and consider showing the resident how to take his own pictures!

 

[dermpathdoc]

also beware of attendings who will take advantage of you... I presented a case of pulmonary hypertensionas a resident...due to wieght loss drugs. the pthots from the autopsy were on 35 mm film. the Pulmonary attending at the end of the presentation asked to have copies of the slides...so i graciously let him have them to make copies of...I never got them back... asked him to return them about 6 weeks later..and he swore he lost them...now if I was still a resident back then I might have waffled...but I told him, return them or if I see an article with my pictues in it..I would inform the publishers you did not have my permission ot use the pics.
Needless to say I never got my pics back..but then I also have not seen my pics in an article

Yikes, talk about a kettle of worms. I thought it was a pretty straightforward question, but I guess it's a little more complicated than I'd expected. I did not ask the clinical resident up front whether I would be listed as co-author, because frankly that was the impression I got from him, so I didn't bother to clarify. Now I'm curious though and wondered what the standard practice is. Apparently standard practice varies.

I will be more careful clarifying my role in the future. I am happy to assist clinicians as much as I can, showing them slides, taking photos, answering their questions, whatever. But my time is limited, and I want to be recognized for my efforts when a publication is involved. I do not plan to build my CV with OPCRs (other people's case reports), but as the topic of this case report is in my sub-specialty of interest, I feel it can only help to add it on there. I certainly have other real research I am working on too.

Moral of the story: clarify in writing up front. Good to know.

And, by the way, the woman who runs our immunohistochemical staining department gets her name on publications all the time, and she certainly doesn't write them.

 

[PathOne]

Actually, the first author of the case report can't really promise to include someone as an author, if that person took photographs and little else. At least not if the author wants to be in compliance with the Vancouver rules, that are generally subscribed to by all major scientific journals.

"Authorship credit should be based on 1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and 3) final approval of the version to be published. Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, and 3."

Frankly, it's difficult to justify that taking photographs would satisfy any of the three requirements. At most, it would include 1), but not the other two conditions.

However, such assistance as mentioned by the OP CAN result in an acknowledgement:

"All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an acknowledgments section. Examples of those who might be acknowledged include a person who provided purely technical help, writing assistance, or a department chair who provided only general support. Editors should ask authors to disclose whether they had writing assistance and to identify the entity that paid for this assistance. Financial and material support should also be acknowledged."

http://www.icmje.org/#author

Yes, I do know that especially attendings and other senior staff often get co-authorship with little or no involvement in the study. However, the Vancouver rules are there for a reason, and personally I think it's just plain wrong that one should be able to claim co-authorship for a work contibution of "one hour" as some other posters have gotten away with.

Also, remember that you need to sign a release form (and hopefully read the manuscript) before you can become a co-author.

If any and all involved in a study gets a co-authorship, it will only further debase the value of publication authorship. So while it's difficult to resist the lure of authorship, please bear that in mind when demanding co-authorship for your contribution to studies. Personally, I have on several occations rejected contributions from people, who demanded co-authorship simply for supplying me with a few slides, or similar contributions.

 

[beary]

I think all of this authorship stuff basically comes down to politics. I wrote a paper that I did 100% of the work in, all the thought process, data interpretation, writing, etc. But then there were about ten middle authors on the paper who had contributing to making a virus that I used in my studies (that they literally just sent me in the mail and had already published). I didn't feel like these people should all be authors on my paper, but obviously my PI thought they should. If anybody asked any of these folks about the work, they would know absolutely nothing about it.

Similarly, people in my lab get co-authorships all the time for other folks using knockout mice that we generated. We don't really contribute to their studies, just send the mice. Obviously, making a knockout mouse or novel virus takes lots of scientific work and expertise. But I just don't think it is clear where the "authorship line" is.

 

[1Path]

Theres all types of "unfair" things going on in the world of research where authorship is concerned and most people I think understand that you won't always for whatever reasons, personal or political, get your fair due. In fact, this type of thing has happend throughout my career doing research ~15 years. So, I make sure to keep copies of EVERYTHING I give someone from data tables to pictures so I can prove my contribution if need be. 😉 I may also mention it in an interview if it becomes relevant to some topic being discussed.

 

[AngryTesticle]

Yeah, there seem to be PI's that are very liberal in terms of who gets included as authors. My PI was the same way. My first paper published in JCB had like 8 authors on it and clearly there was a big gap, with respect to intellectual contribution/reagent supply/data contribution between myself, my co-first author, and the middle authors. But I can understand this and if I am lucky to be a PI someday, I think I will be liberal as to authorship inclusion. So what if they had little or no "intellectual" contribution...if they supply me with data and I use them in the manuscript, they will be listed as authors. But that's just my personal preference and I can respect how others may feel differently.

Other bosses are quite less liberal and their papers tend to have just a few authors listed whereas others with minor contributions just get acknowledgments. To each his/her own.

That being said, if I am listed as a middle author in a publication merely because I did one experiment and supplied a figure, I have no reservations accepting that 🙂 But, I usually don't take much pride in that because everyone knows that when people look at your CV and look at your publications, people are mainly looking at the publications where you are the primary author (which means you were the intellectual impetus behind the overall body of the work).

Now, if I just simply supply a reagent (usually by this point, I have mentioned this reagent in a previous publication), I usually ask that I don't be listed as a co-author. This is because once you publish the existence of a reagent, technically you're supposed to provide to others in the scientific community that wishes to use it. Of course, this is interpreted loosely too because when I've asked for certain published reagents, some PI's have been dicks to me and basically told me to f*ck off (most likely due to competition)...oh no, what do I do? Do I go running to the "higher scientific body", start crying, and demand that I be provided the reagent?

As for providing unpublished slide pics and asking for authorship...I can understand the mixed reactions on this thread. But again, that attests to how different people use different criteria for authorship inclusion. Sure, there is are the "official" set of rules/values that pertain to who should be included as authors or not but they are interpreted pretty liberally by different people.

Stormjen, I personally think you should be deserving of at LEAST an acknowledgment if you take the time to take the photos and then select the appropriate photos in the context of someone else's paper. Authorship? I don't know enough about your intellectual contribution or how much material you are supplying to assess whether you should or should not be listed as an author...can't make that judgment for you.

I think all of this authorship stuff basically comes down to politics. I wrote a paper that I did 100% of the work in, all the thought process, data interpretation, writing, etc. But then there were about ten middle authors on the paper who had contributing to making a virus that I used in my studies (that they literally just sent me in the mail and had already published). I didn't feel like these people should all be authors on my paper, but obviously my PI thought they should. If anybody asked any of these folks about the work, they would know absolutely nothing about it.

Similarly, people in my lab get co-authorships all the time for other folks using knockout mice that we generated. We don't really contribute to their studies, just send the mice. Obviously, making a knockout mouse or novel virus takes lots of scientific work and expertise. But I just don't think it is clear where the "authorship line" is.

 

[PathOne]

Many very good points supplied by AngryTesticle. I certainly think he deserves a co-first authorship for that post. 🙂

 

[AngryTesticle]

Many very good points supplied by AngryTesticle. I certainly think he deserves a co-first authorship for that post. 🙂

Oh you're too funny 🙂

 

[stormjen]

Thanks for the great information, especially PathOne for the link to the ICMJE. With what I now know, I expect only an acknowledgement for the amount of assistance I have provided the clinical resident in the preparation of his case report. Were he to ask me to contribute some text, i.e. a histopathological description of the entity, I would expect co-authorship. I'm of the mindset that publication authorship shouldn't be watered down, so I don't think I deserve to be listed if I don't do anymore work. However, if he wants to list me, I certainly won't complain.

 

[torero]

Not to beat on a dead horse, but I just want to emphasize that stormjen's situation in particular relates to a CASE REPORT. Whatever point the authors are trying to make by reporting that particuar case, it is likely that it hangs, perhaps entirely, from the pathology diagnosis/images. It is likely that without the pathology diagnosis/images, they wouldn't have a case report. Thus, the pathology images in case reports should be considered, to make an analogy to basic science papers, the key experiment/figure of the paper. I can't imagine someone receiving only an acknowledgement for providing this kind of input.

 

[PathOne]

Well, I'd agree that case reports may be a little bit different. I have, on several occations, included someone who merely supplied the case, and did nothing else. In theory, and hopefully in most cases, authorship should imply an important and/or significant contribution to the paper. In reality, politics often plays a large role. That's why many (myself included) basically look at first or second authorships when looking at publication lists.

 

[tardieu]

I'd recommend pushing for co-authorship. It costs them nothing to add a name. There's really no reason to refuse.