We are readying another paper from GradLab for publication, and dealing with that age-old problem, authorship.
This paper began when a tech in the lab made an experimental observation. Advisor and I thought this observation was remarkable, and encouraged/drove him to follow up this observation with more experiments. He performed admirably, shoring up the original data and adding some new pieces to it.
What would turn this observation into a paper? Advisor and I debated a few different ways that it could become a paper. I did a set of different experiments myself to help flesh out the manuscript. In all, I contributed about 1/4 of the experimental data of this paper. The tech's data represents about 2/3, and remaining technical help from others in the lab rounds out the story.
At about this point, both Tech and I left GradLab. I wrote up this paper for publication, and GradAdvisor and I have been tweaking it for several months.
When I sent the close-to-finished manuscript out to all authors, I listed me and Tech as co first authors, in that order. I thought this seemed like the best solution given that
1) He had contributed much more than I had experimentally
2) He had made the original interesting observation that launched the whole paper
3) I had provided the writing and intellectual drive, plus ~1/4 of the experiments.
GradAdvisor disagreed. "You conceived of this paper, and you should be sole first author, with Tech second."
I was surprised and not a little concerned by this. Should I be first author on a paper whose experimental data is 3/4 someone else's? (It's not as though I'm a theorist!) Yes, the intellectual drive was primarily mine, but it would never have mattered if Tech hadn't made the first key experimental observation--which forms the "cool" factor of this paper; my experimental contributions are nice but not the main point.
A friend of mine familiar with the situation gave me the same advice--that the intellectual contribution was what mattered most, and therefore I deserved first authorship.
Because both Advisor and my friend agree, even over my objections, that I am selling myself short on authorship, I am changing myself to be sole first author. But I still feel a bit as though I cheated Tech out of a joint-first authorship. Will this fade over time as I come to recognize the primacy of intellectual over experimental contributions? Or will I keep feeling guilty that I got a "free" paper?
In the end, I wrote one of those "author contribution" sections that you see occasionally nowadays, and this left me feeling better. It is now public record who contributed what to this paper (although of course the intangibles remain just that). This decision has helped reconcile me to the authorship order, because I no longer feel as though I'm pretending to have done more than I have.
Now I just have to break the news to Tech...
15 years ago
17 comments:
What about asking (rather than telling) tech about the authorship decision and negotiating directly with him/her. If an honest discussion is possible you may have a better outcome all around (and you may discover that he agrees with the colleagues you already discussed things with). On the other hand if he disagrees with your colleagues you can go back to your original plan and be no worse off than you initially thought you were and have built a bond with a colleague that will be difficult to replace.
Given the gray nature of this authorship decision, I would be inclined to consider the tech's position in this situation. Is this person a good colleague? Is this a person with whom you would benefit from a positive relationship in the future?
Also, what are tech's career goals? Will it help him substantially to have a co-first authorship paper (e.g. for grad school applications, etc)?
If the answer is yes to these questions, I would be inclined to share first authorship. It does not damage your position significantly, and it will help out your colleague. He did, in fact, contribute the majority of the data.
Some may argue that it should be a black and white issue that shouldn't depend on personal factors. That, of course, is a matter of opinion.
Hypatia has a good idea in speaking with your colleague first. If first authorship is no big deal to him, then take it.
Yeah, one of the arguments against his having first authorship was basically that he's not planning on going to grad school--teching is something he's good at and enjoys but doesn't want Science to be his only job. So the publication doesn't mean as much to him career-wise. However, I'm never sure how much emphasis to give this argument--why should credit be distributed based on need?
I will definitely talk with him about it to see how he feels.
I'd suggest the co-authorship, for a couple basic reasons:
1) As you explained, the paper doesn't exist without the cool initial observation, nor the hefty fraction of the work that Tech did.
2) While it is true that he's "just a tech" and doesn't necessarily "need" the authorship, you lose nothing by having him be the second co-author, and he gains quite a lot.
3) Why should authorship come down to who "needs it"? If he contributed first-author stuff to a paper, he oughta be a fricking first author. Meriting authorship doesn't come down to having the appropriate initials after your name.
Of course, the paper will always be Jekyll et al, no matter if you're solo first, or co-first, so in principle this shouldn't matter. In practice, he's getting the recognition that he deserves, and you're getting the intellectual credit for what you've contributed to the paper.
OTOH, if he doesn't care about where he sits on the author line, then I'd defer to the GradAdvisor's wishes.
Co-first authorship is the way to solve these types of situations as it is meaningless other than to give a passing nod to someone that contributed a lot to a paper. The paper will appear in databases as Jekyll et al regardless of whether tech is co-first author or not. If everyone agrees that your name should be listed first, add the tech as co-first author - it won't make any difference to your cv but will provide a token goodwill gesture towards the tech.
I think the collecting of data with guidance doesn't make a "co first author" necessarily, even if they collected the majority of the data. But, I think the fact that the "observation" was made by him might, depending on what it actually constituted.
And, as others state, the co- doesn't really change things for you, as long as your name is actually first. Perhaps grad-advisor comes from an era when the designation wasn't used, and thus doesn't really get it?
But, I think this isn't something you get into a battle about with your adviser. If Tech cares, he should bring up the subject, and you can be quietly supportive. If Tech doesn't care, give in.
Do you actually specify the first author? In my field it is just a sequence of names, and the order is the only thing that matters.
i've actually been in this situation as the tech, albeit with the intention of getting a ph.d. i did the experiments under the guidance of my advisor and he wrote the paper. he contributed some of the data but i did the bulk of the work. in the end, he wrote the paper and was first author, which i thought was correct. he wrote the paper, i was second having done the majority of the work and our collaborator was third.
i'm in grad school now and i don't feel shorted for not having been first author, but i was in a field where first author is generally the person who wrote the paper and not necessarily the major contributer. quite honestly, i was happy to get on another paper regardless of position. if tech had done the majority of the work and contributed to the writing then i would think co-author, but as Professor in Training pointed out the paper will be listed as Jekyll et al no matter what.
if tech has no desire to do more in science than tech, it probably won't matter where on the byline he is, just that he's there.
good luck and congrats on cranking out another paper :)
Did the tech conceive of the experiments on which the "observation" was made? Did the tech understand the implications to the broader questions, or did he/she say, hey, 'there's a band here in this gel'? I think intellectual contribution to the experiments is the key here (but you have to defer to GradAdvsr regardless, so it's kind of a moot point). No question about first author - you wrote it. Right or wrong, carrying out experiments conceived by others is what (most) techs get paid to do - with relatively (if any) authorship credit.
Neurowoman is the closest, I think. Tech made a great observation, but it is true that he didn't know why his observation was important, or what its value was.
However, I agree with the general sentiment that I should find out how Tech feels about this. We'll see...this is going to be a bit awkward.
SG, the order of names is the key, but many papers include asterisks after the first and second authors' names with a notation, "* These authors contributed equally to this work" or some such.
I think that your original inclination was right, the other advice your getting is wrong (including some of the comments here). I agree with PiT and DGT on this.
Consider the following:
1. How would you want to be treated if you were the Tech? Be honest with yourself about this. If you're the Tech, are you 100% sure you'll always be a Tech?
2. Does it really hurt you at all to list this person as co-first with an asterisk rather than second without an asterisk (it will still be cited in Pubmed as Dr.J&H et al. 2009)? I think the answer to this is a resounding NO, it does not hurt you at all.
3. How would you feel if Tech suddenly got hit by a car before the paper was officially in print? Would you wish you had been more generous?
So to sum up, I totally disagree with Candid Engineer on this one.
And FYI, it is COMPLETELY UNETHICAL to decide authorship credit based on how much you think it will help the person and whether it matters to their future career or not. That information is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.
Finally, one last point, if Tech did all the work, would you want this person to also be equally invested to defend it or take some of the blame if someone else comes back later and says they can't reproduce all the results? Do you really want all the credit for the work in that case?
I hope you do the right thing here. There is a special place in hell for people who don't include techs as authors at all, but downplaying their contributions in order to play up one's own should also be a recipe for bad karma, if there is any justice in the world.
Well, I took several people's advice and asked Tech. I laid out the situation as I did in the post: that I thought he was plenty deserving, and had contributed a lot of the data, but that Advisor was disagreeing based on intellectual contribution.
I then said that I was more than willing to insist on joint-first status, but that I wanted to know what he thought about it.
He wrote back to say that he thought co-first was "too much" for his contribution, and that if he had had a hand in writing the paper at all then he might think differently, but that given the circumstances "second author is honor enough." He sounded sincere, not as though he were saying what he thought I wanted to hear.
Ms PhD and DGT, I agree that who "needs" authorship should not be a factor in the vast majority of decisions, although I can imagine some (grad student with series of bad breaks or similar) where it might.
Ms PhD, one final point is that I would not want Tech to shoulder even an ounce of blame if this paper turned out to be erroneous. He did terrific experiments but it would not be his fault in the slightest if some of the conclusions we drew in this paper were incorrect.
2. Does it really hurt you at all to list this person as co-first with an asterisk rather than second without an asterisk (it will still be cited in Pubmed as Dr.J&H et al. 2009)? I think the answer to this is a resounding NO, it does not hurt you at all.
And it doesn't help the tech, AT ALL. In contexts where it matters, everyone considers "co-first-authors" who are not actually listed first as NOT first-authors.
Although of course another sole first-author paper is a boost for me (because when people are actually looking to hire, I think they do check if it was single or double or triple-first author...), I really didn't feel much concern about how this episode would look on my resume one way or the other. My resume is just fine. It will be fine whether Tech were joint-first or not.
My concern was really more with what was fair and appropriate. Ms PhD's point about taking blame if the paper is a suck actually really helped me feel more honest about the first authorship--I would not want Tech getting bruised by that situation ever, nor does he deserve to. So I'll take the credit, and if need be the blame...
because when people are actually looking to hire, I think they do check if it was single or double or triple-first author...
No, they don't. No one cares. Everyone knows that co-first-authors are political compromises, and that the first-listed first-author is the actual first author.
CPP, that's very interesting--I had always assumed it counted equally as it was presumably intended to, at least in some cases. Can you elaborate? Do you then check the person's recommendation letter to see if the relevant PI says something like, "No, really, this was a honest-to-God joint first"?
because when people are actually looking to hire, I think they do check if it was single or double or triple-first author...
Unless they are very thorough AND actually get a copy of the paper AND look closely to see minuscule asterisks in the author list, nobody is going to notice whether you're co-first author or not.
Post a Comment