When someone says they are published...

[premeddick]

---

Members do not see this ad.

When someone says they are published does that mean that they are THE first author or just AN author?

Or if someone asks "Is it important to have a publication?" does that mean a first author publication or just an "any" author publication?

Finally, is it worth mentioning in applications for residency or medical school conference posters in which the person is not the first author?

Thanks for your help.

 

[Tangent]

I can't answer the other questions, but I was told it isn't common to put a poster on your CV unless you are the first author. Unless you are the presenter (first author) on a poster it doesn't count for much.

 

[Wizard of Oz]

Yes, include all of that on your c.v. Typically posters only have the P.I. and the first author included. If you did the work, feel free to take the credit.

Use of the word "published" can mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean. "Published" can mean first author in the New England Journal of Medicine or third author in the Annual Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of Sciences (no offense--don't even know if that exists).

Some professional c.v.'s are tens of pages in length and include all of what you mentioned.

 

[vwhan]

Yes, include all of that on your c.v. Typically posters only have the P.I. and the first author included. If you did the work, feel free to take the credit.

Use of the word "published" can mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean. "Published" can mean first author in the New England Journal of Medicine or third author in the Annual Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of Sciences (no offense--don't even know if that exists).

Some professional c.v.'s are tens of pages in length and include all of what you mentioned.

I totally agree with the Wiz. Put everything on your CV, regardless of where your name falls in the publication. And yes, published can mean that you are not the 1st author.

 

[Bertelman]

Third vote...put it all on your CV. And yes, although I believe one should only say, "I'm published" if they were first author, it's typically not done that way.

 

[Law2Doc]

I totally agree with the Wiz. Put everything on your CV, regardless of where your name falls in the publication. And yes, published can mean that you are not the 1st author.

I also agree, list it. However if you are not in the first or at least second author slot, it will not be given significant (or maybe even any) weight. But it still counts as having a "publication".

 

[RxnMan]

This may not be implied in your questions, but it is a good time to mention that there's a difference between posters, podium presentations, abstracts, and papers. Posters generally are at the bottom the heirarchy, while podium looked upon more highly, and full-length peer-reviewed journal articles are looked upon as being the best form of publication you can have. All of these are usually presented at conferences, so within this list, items presented at local, regional, national, and international conferences, are increasingly more prestidigious. Generally you need to write (and have accepted) an abstract to present anything at these meetings, so you might list the abstract and the poster (that summarizes the abstract) together.

Author listing on full-length journal articles are generally done by the level of effort and postition. The folks who worked the most on a project get first and second author. The PI (the money) generally gets last author, while the 3rd-to-second-to-last are generally given to people who were consulted or did small amounts of work. That's why the respect for 3rd+ authorship slopes off dramatically.

All of these items should be listed on your CV, regardless of where they are in the "hierarchy."

 

[45408]

Third vote...put it all on your CV. And yes, although I believe one should only say, "I'm published" if they were first author, it's typically not done that way.

I disagree, because some PIs will stick their name on a project (even as first author) that was conducted entirely by the student. I think what's fair is to put people in the order of their importance to the project.

 

[Rockhouse]

I would list it all, being a first author certainly conveys more that you were the workhorse of the project, and in my knowledge the PI is always listed last. Being an author anywhere (on a journal pub anyways) should mean that you did a fair amount of intellectual work on the project, even if you weren't the creative genius, and that does mean something. Since dishwashers and animal feeders etc. are generally listed at the end of the publication as "special thanks" and not in the authors field, being an author shows something good, whether you are 2nd, 3rd or whatever.

 

[Wizard of Oz]

I disagree, because some PIs will stick their name on a project (even as first author) that was conducted entirely by the student. I think what's fair is to put people in the order of their importance to the project.

If the PI is faculty, then it is in his/her best interest to assume the position of last author. For students and fellows, the first position is desired.

If a faculty member is assuming the first author position without doing the bench work or actually writing the skeleton draft of the manuscript, then I think that vanity is getting in the way of the bigger picture. For somebody who already has a terminal job and is eligible to write grants, the last spot is more prestigious.

If faculty is going for tenure and presents a bunch of papers as first author, the department head will probably say that he or she is not making the best use of time. In research, the point is to produce new people interested in carrying out your work. You do that by giving them first author papers and sending them out as muscular sheep among wolves. If you mop up the first spot, you're sending weaker sheep, and your flock will not prosper.

 

[premeddick]

Nice analogy. I have another very specific and probably pointless question. If the two first authors "contributed equally to this work" then is the third name on the list the second author or the third author. Thanks for the help.

 

[Law2Doc]

Nice analogy. I have another very specific and probably pointless question. If the two first authors "contributed equally to this work" then is the third name on the list the second author or the third author. Thanks for the help.

Um no. The folks tied for first are first and second. Third is always third.

 

[45408]

then I think that vanity is getting in the way of the bigger picture.

That's never happened in the world of academia!

I don't disagree with your conclusion, but my point stands that you might have done most of the work and still not be listed as first author because your PI is a tool.

 

[Wizard of Oz]

That's never happened in the world of academia!

I don't disagree with your conclusion, but my point stands that you might have done most of the work and still not be listed as first author because your PI is a tool.

Trudat!

Regarding the "ranking" of authors, I have seen a little bit of a tug-of-war. In my experience, when there is equal contribution, sometimes the person who needs it most gets the first spot. For instance, I once worked for a PI who was trying to push his fellow out the door, so he sometimes gave an inappropriate amount of credit to the guy to assist him in getting a job (and leave).

On the same note, the lab tech or paid research assistant (which I call a "house elf") never gets first author if the PI can find a reason to give it to a student or fellow first.

Third author is often a courtesy authorship, but still put it on your c.v. Don't worry, if there is a question about it, they will ask you at the interview.

 

[RxnMan]

Yeah - I did a lot of the work (the experiments, the data analysis, the writing, and even made the actual discovery) on my first conference paper. My PI asked me for the first athorship, citing he had come up with the original idea for the experiments. I didn't fight him on it because he was right.

Within that project, one member of our team put in a lot of effort recruiting patients. When I found some clinically-relevant results within our final data set, we gave her first author to help her finish out her degree (she was in a concurrent PA/MS program) and help her career.

So author ranking =/= f(effort)

But by working as a cooperative and supportive member of a team, I got a lot of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd authorships. By playing the game a bit you keep everyone happy and get the most out of a project. Some (as in TheProwler's experience) lose sight of that. A lot of people get so frustrated at being used that they leave research or the field entirely.

 

[DougFlutie]

Um no. The folks tied for first are first and second. Third is always third.

Incorrect. Out of three authors, it is sometimes the case that the last author is the PI or the corresponding author. Middle author < first or last.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

Incorrect. Out of three authors, it is sometimes the case that the last author is the PI or the corresponding author. Middle author < first or last.

I think being "third author" implies it is not the last author. Last author is last author.

 

[YouDontKnowJack]

come on.

how many med students really do meaningful research.....

 

[Law2Doc]

Incorrect. Out of three authors, it is sometimes the case that the last author is the PI or the corresponding author. Middle author < first or last.

Agree with Pinkertinkle. You need to read the posts in the context of the thread. We clearly were talking about a situation where there were more than three authors. And my (negative) response to the prior poster as to whether an author can be deemed to have moved up in cases of a "tie" is thus not incorrect.

 

[RxnMan]

come on.

how many med students really do meaningful research.....

Don't knock those who got skillz!




Ok...I'll go back to my hole now.

 

[Bertelman]

come on.

how many med students really do meaningful research.....

In my case, my significant stuff occurred prior to med school. No great JAMA article, but I presented at a fair number of national and international conferences.

I agree, in med school it is a different story. I think few people, unless they take time off to conduct research, can make a contribution significant enough to warrant 1st/2nd authorship.

And for those surprised by the amount of politics involved in the order of authors, I would agree with basically every story or scenario listed above. We actually had discussions during our department research meetings about the order of authors.

 

[MossPoh]

So......... If you wrote like a 5 page survey paper with little to no field research outside of walking to a library and printing off some journal articles on a topic, wrote the paper, and had it put in something like a school journal type thing, or presented for an undergrad research fair or something else qually as unimportant....could you still claim the being "published" deal? What if you were published with something completley unrelated to medicine or science in general? Example...I had a poem that published in some crappy book which I can't even find at stores or online (for the most part) and was put in about 5 newspapers including the Indianpolis Star.......does that count as being published? lol I know I'm stretching it I am just curious where the line is, if there is a line to begin with.

 

[YouDontKnowJack]

Example...I had a poem that published in some crappy book which I can't even find at stores or online (for the most part) and was put in about 5 newspapers including the Indianpolis Star.......does that count as being published?

hell yeah.

residency directors are always looking for a good poem.

 

[Wizard of Oz]

So......... If you wrote like a 5 page survey paper with little to no field research outside of walking to a library and printing off some journal articles on a topic, wrote the paper, and had it put in something like a school journal type thing, or presented for an undergrad research fair or something else qually as unimportant....could you still claim the being "published" deal? What if you were published with something completley unrelated to medicine or science in general? Example...I had a poem that published in some crappy book which I can't even find at stores or online (for the most part) and was put in about 5 newspapers including the Indianpolis Star.......does that count as being published? lol I know I'm stretching it I am just curious where the line is, if there is a line to begin with.

I suppose that a person could claim whatever he or she wanted to claim, but in my circles, to publish means to author a manuscript that is both peer reviewed and readily available to at least a national audience. I think that the line is drawn with peer review. To be credible research, it usually has to be validated by some other expert--the strength of the expertise of the reviewer may be what determines the quality of the journal, but it should be verified by a third party.

 

[vtucci]

A lot of students are now doing research as many schools have summer research programs with stipends.

The order for authorship depends greatly on the doctor with whom you are working. Some departments believe the PI should be last and the student or resident who wrote the paper as first. Sometime the PI is listed as first and student as second. If you work with the same PI on more than one project, sometimes they will alternate first and second authorship. Some docs even have contracts about the authorship in advance of the project so everyone is on the same page.

My mentors have told me that one publication for a medical student is considered excellent and two is outstanding. Granted, they are assuming that the student is not an MD/PhD or had a PhD before medical school.

 

[DougFlutie]

Agree with Pinkertinkle. You need to read the posts in the context of the thread. We clearly were talking about a situation where there were more than three authors. And my (negative) response to the prior poster as to whether an author can be deemed to have moved up in cases of a "tie" is thus not incorrect.

Well, the OP's second question never delineated how many contributors were authored. Conversation may have shifted elsewhere, but his question never stated it was or was not a certain number of authors.

So, while your post may not have been incorrect in the context of 3+ authors, it was incorrect in the context of 3/3 authors.

I'm just bothered by the matter-of-factness of the posts in this thread (I'm guilty of it too). Authorship delegations can be insanely arbitrary as it is, there's almost no point in debating it.

This reminds me of posts on xoxoth. More prestigious: Kenya or Lesotho?

 

[Law2Doc]

Well, the OP's second question never delineated how many contributors were authored. Conversation may have shifted elsewhere, but his question never stated it was or was not a certain number of authors.

You responded to my post, not the OPs, and my post was actually in response to a post by the OP in this thread different than his original question. The meaning of his question didn't seem as subject to interpretation as you seem to suggest. There is nothing wrong with a response being "matter of fact" when it is accurate.

 

[MossPoh]

I suppose that a person could claim whatever he or she wanted to claim, but in my circles, to publish means to author a manuscript that is both peer reviewed and readily available to at least a national audience. I think that the line is drawn with peer review. To be credible research, it usually has to be validated by some other expert--the strength of the expertise of the reviewer may be what determines the quality of the journal, but it should be verified by a third party.

Thanks..I assumed it was something like that...I don't think I'd ever actually put the poetry stuff down but it seems like more people are "published" than space available in every journal created....in addition my research now is taking 10 solid months and the professor helping me was saying it wouldn't be enough to aim for being published anyway. 😛 (This is putting about 15-20 hours a week in it...but that includes reading the huge stack of medical informatics journals and crap next to me)

 

[Tangent]

Do publications from research you did before you started medical school count equally to ones during medical school?

 

[Law2Doc]

Do publications from research you did before you started medical school count equally to ones during medical school?

More recent is given more weight, generally.

 

[Wizard of Oz]

Do publications from research you did before you started medical school count equally to ones during medical school?

Probably not. If you published 3 papers in the field of soil microbiology as an undergrad and later wanted to do radiology as a residency, I'd say one clinical paper with a radiology faculty member as an MS 3 will outweigh your undergraduate work. Great board scores will trump both.