Third author?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Samus Aran

Old member
Moderator Emeritus
20+ Year Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
6,832
Reaction score
83
I know this question sounds pretty cheesy, since really any publication is looked upon favorably, but I know there is a difference between having a first author, second author, third, etc. publication. I'm going to have a paper coming out (hopefully w/in the next few months) where I'm third author out of 6. The PI (the actual author) placed himself last, and the first and second authors are a grad student and post-bacc student, respectively. How big of a difference is there in being third author instead of second??? And on another note, I'm really not whining about it (even though it sounds like it), I just want to get an idea of how this authorship will come across to adcom's...
 
That is a sweet icon...

As for the pubs, I think the biggest jump is from 1st to 2nd. Of course, the farther ahead in the list you are, the better. Also, the less # of authors, the better. I'd definitely put it down and probably talk about your work regardless of author position (unless you have a first author elsewhere).
 
Misty said:
How big of a difference in being third author instead of second???

All authors of a manuscript other than the first and last are in an ambiguous position. They may have had significant intellectual input on experimental design and data analysis/interpretation, as well as in carrying out experiments and writing the paper. However, we all know that they may also be on the manuscript for providing an antibody or running experiments with no input on design/analysis. One problem in deciphering what it means to be third author is that depending on the size and make up of a lab, as well as the PIs philosophy on authorship, all authors (other than last) may have had equal intellectual input, or they may not have. There a slew of other variables that will weight in on rank in the author list.

The best thing for you do ($0.02) is to demonstrate that you had significant intellectual input and can be considered a main author irrespective of your position below the title of the paper. This can come from discussing the work somewhere in your app or in an interview.

As you mentioned, any authorship is good as far as admissions, but the committees will look at a first authorship in a slightly different light than a third. It?s still a great achievement and it will help you. 👍
 
The Lancet now requires that the contribution of each author be spelt out in the Acknowledgements sections of a paper like: R.R. conceived the experiment, and together with A.H. and L.L. carried it out; C.D.B. designed and carried out the data analysis; R.R. and C.D.B. co-wrote the paper....

I think all journals should adobt this kind of approach - it would end the dishonest practice of honorary authorship and give credit to the contribution of a second, third, fourth authors etc...

I think Nature have made attempts to introduce something similar:
Nature 399, 393 (03 June 1999)
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v399/n6735/full/399393b0_fs.html
 
that would be good...

It would prob. save the PI the trouble of having to spend a lot of time spelling out my contributions in his LOR, which he'll probably end up doing anyway. oh well... 🙂
 
Trinners said:
I think all journals should adobt this kind of approach - it would end the dishonest practice of honorary authorship and give credit to the contribution of a second, third, fourth authors etc...

Absolutely 👍 .

?Hey Jerry, if you just want to give me some comments on this manuscript, I can throw you on somewhere.?. Ten years and 37 of those buddy-pubs later Jerry says ??and thanks for all the help over the years Bob, that really helped me get tenure last month.?. Ya, great.

And you know this stuff goes on all of the time ? CV padding with the bud-pubs. If Nature, PNAS, Cell and Science would all start requiring this for the research reports, then I bet most journals would be forced to follow suit. Well OK, maybe not PNAS? :laugh:
 
dont bring up what author u are. Just say here is one of my publications or just list the publication on ur app. Whats more important is if u can answer the questions about ur research during ur interview.

Also, 3rd author is still good, it shows that u are still doing stuff while others arent doing anything.

Later
 
Misty said:
I know this question sounds pretty cheesy, since really any publication is looked upon favorably, but I know there is a difference between having a first author, second author, third, etc. publication. I'm going to have a paper coming out (hopefully w/in the next few months) where I'm third author out of 6. The PI (the actual author) placed himself last, and the first and second authors are a grad student and pst-bacc student, respectively. How big of a difference in being third author instead of second??? And on a die note, I'm really not whining about it (even though it sounds like it), I just want to get an idea of how this authorship will come across to adcom's...

ROAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRR. Demand first authorship. You go girl.

howarddean2004.gif
 
wow I just noticed about 5 grammatical errors in my original post, good thing I didn't write that paper all by my lonesome... 😳
 
Must be a trend b/c PNAS is doing something similar:

www.pnas.orgcgidoi10.1073pnas.0404563101 PNAS  July 20, 2004  vol. 101  no. 29  10495

Trinners said:
The Lancet now requires that the contribution of each author be spelt out in the Acknowledgements sections of a paper like: R.R. conceived the experiment, and together with A.H. and L.L. carried it out; C.D.B. designed and carried out the data analysis; R.R. and C.D.B. co-wrote the paper....

I think all journals should adobt this kind of approach - it would end the dishonest practice of honorary authorship and give credit to the contribution of a second, third, fourth authors etc...

I think Nature have made attempts to introduce something similar:
Nature 399, 393 (03 June 1999)
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v399/n6735/full/399393b0_fs.html
 
PNAS is the last journal I would have expected to adopt a system like this. But kudos to them for moving in that direction. 👍
 
Yup, PNAS says:

We also recognize that papers may
result from specialized contributions
from individual authors. Accordingly,
we now strongly encourage authors to
indicate their specific contributions to
published work. This information will be
posted online as a footnote to the paper,
but to save journal space, it will not
appear in print. Examples of designations
an author could note include the
following:
Y Designed research;
Y Performed research;
Y Contributed new reagents or analytic
tools;
Y Analyzed data; or
Y Wrote the paper.

...

Gathering funds for the project,
paying salaries, providing a conducive
environment, being the spokesperson, or
providing published reagents or procedures
(2) are not activities that warrant
authorship without a significant contribution
to the scientific content of the
paper.
 
i just found myself in a similar situation to the OP's, and was wondering if the journal the paper was published in would have any bearing on the importance of a 3rd authorship. im inclined to think that its still a plus no matter where it gets printed, provided you expand upon what you did in the essay, interview, etc.
 
marctam86 said:
i just found myself in a similar situation to the OP's, and was wondering if the journal the paper was published in would have any bearing on the importance of a 3rd authorship. im inclined to think that its still a plus no matter where it gets printed, provided you expand upon what you did in the essay, interview, etc.

I think understanding the project and being able to expand on your contribution to the paper during interviews is more important than where your name is listed. I mean it's hard enough to get first author publications in grad school...so first author undergrads!?! although it occasionally happens, let's step back into reality here. many MSTPs applicants don't even have a single publications. some MSTP's finish their PhD's without any publications (as hard as it is to imagine).
 
Top