Question about publications

[mejorization]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Recently I got an email from my PI notifying his intent to name me as a coauthor for a paper he was planning to publish.

I only worked in the lab for one summer (2.5 months). My question is, isn't that a bit short to be named coauthor? I see people work in labs for 2+ years and still have no publications.

The work was done at NIEHS for the Summers of Discovery program. Could it be that the policies on naming undergrads as coauthors are different in federal agency labs than in university labs?

 

[n3xa]

Recently I got an email from my PI notifying his intent to name me as a coauthor for a paper he was planning to publish.

I only worked in the lab for one summer (2.5 months). My question is, isn't that a bit short to be named coauthor? I see people work in labs for 2+ years and still have no publications.

The work was done at NIEHS for the Summers of Discovery program. Could it be that the policies on naming undergrads as coauthors are different in federal agency labs than in university labs?

If your results are significant, then no it's not too short to be named co-author. It varies by PI/lab more than anything.

People who do research for years might not have a publication for a variety of reasons. One PI in particular was notorious for having a bajillion manuscripts sitting on her desk at any given point because she was so busy.

Congrats on the publication! 🙂

 

[ahmcadams]

Authorship is far less about time devoted to the project and far more about contribution to the investigative/writing process with a ton of politics tossed in for good measure.

Congrats to you if you're getting listed as a co-author. That'll rubber-stamp the research portion of your app and likely be something you'll be asked about at every interview you attend.

 

[mejorization]

Authorship is far less about time devoted to the project and far more about contribution to the investigative/writing process with a ton of politics tossed in for good measure.

Congrats to you if you're getting listed as a co-author. That'll rubber-stamp the research portion of your app and likely be something you'll be asked about at every interview you attend.

But I don't feel like I contributed significantly to the research. I did little else but run experiments and present my work at a poster session.

The undergrad who worked in the lab before I did was also named as a coauthor, also for a summer's worth of work. So could it just be that my lab passes out coauthorships like candy? If that is the case, wouldn't an interviewer find out that I did much less to deserve a coauthorship than most?

 

[ahmcadams]

If this is a small paper that would otherwise include only the PI and a post-doc, the PI might just be rewarding you and the other RA for your help in the lab. That's totally reasonable and you should take advantage of that opportunity. When you get asked about the project, you can briefly describe your role in the protocol itself and speak in more depth about the question you asked, its importance in the field of interest, and how your results may influence or move the field forward. In short, talk about what the research means and might imply for the future rather than how many gels you gelled during your gelling. It maybe take more time to become that facile with the science you're describing, but that's just part of the game.

If this is a big deal paper or one with a large author list, you and anyone else who may have contributed may simply be part of the cattle call of authors between the real authors and the PI at the end. In that case, it's still meaningful, but it would be obvious you weren't one of the primary parties involved. Still, that pub would be an asset, esp. if you were able to speak intelligently about the relevant science/medicine.

 

[mejorization]

If this is a small paper that would otherwise include only the PI and a post-doc, the PI might just be rewarding you and the other RA for your help in the lab. That's totally reasonable and you should take advantage of that opportunity. When you get asked about the project, you can briefly describe your role in the protocol itself and speak in more depth about the question you asked, its importance in the field of interest, and how your results may influence or move the field forward. In short, talk about what the research means and might imply for the future rather than how many gels you gelled during your gelling. It maybe take more time to become that facile with the science you're describing, but that's just part of the game.

If this is a big deal paper or one with a large author list, you and anyone else who may have contributed may simply be part of the cattle call of authors between the real authors and the PI at the end. In that case, it's still meaningful, but it would be obvious you weren't one of the primary parties involved. Still, that pub would be an asset, esp. if you were able to speak intelligently about the relevant science/medicine.

It's the first case, where the only other authors are the PI and a postdoc.
I always thought that authorship meant a contribution to the project beyond what any lab tech could do, e.g. coming up with ideas for experiments. Thanks for the clarification!

 

[Catalystik]

But I don't feel like I contributed significantly to the research. I did little else but run experiments and present my work at a poster session.

Keep your feelings to yourself. Accurately reflect your contribution when you describe what you did in the Experiences section of the application, but don't downplay it.

And this is a good idea:

speak in more depth about the question you asked, its importance in the field of interest, and how your results may influence or move the field forward. In short, talk about what the research means and might imply for the future rather than how many gels you gelled during your gelling.