1st Authorship as an MSc. (Candidate)

[hcoach]

Hey everyone,

 

I've spent the last semester doing a secondary analysis on a data set from a study I helped conduct last year, this is not my thesis, I'm just in my first year of my Master's. I've found significant results and am in the process of writing up a manuscript, but my supervisor is saying it's best if it's he that gets first authorship rather than I. The rationale is that reviewers are more likely to take it seriously if it's a PhD in front of the author list, than a BSc. 

 

I'm just wondering, from everybody's experience, whether this is the case. We're submitting to a 2.0+ impact journal, and we've recently been rejected by another journal for a paper that had another Master's student as senior author, so there's precedence. I just don't want to be passing up on a great opportunity to get a senior authored publication in my first year if it has as good a chance as any at getting accepted. 

 

So option A) I push ahead with publishing as first author and possibly risk getting rejected, and perhaps damaging my relationship with my supervisor option playing it safe and letting my supervisor take senior authorship, I get 2nd authorship, and probably earn some moral credit from my supervisor.

 

Thoughts?

[fuzzylogician]

In my field authorship is determined by the authors' contributions, and according to the conventions there the one who contributed the most is first, and the PI is usually last. Another convention in a different corner of my field is to list everybody alphabetically, especially if everyone contributed equally. Whether or not the submission "will be taken seriously" because of who's first is never a consideration and anyway since review is blind I don't think it should matter. Not that it's hard to know who you are reviewing (it's a small field, I normally have a good idea of whose papers I'm reviewing and also of who reviewed mine) but that doesn't affect authorship decisions. 

[jmu]

Editors don't seem to care who is listed first and reviews are blind. If you did the analysis and wrote up the manuscript then you should be first author (unless there is some other reason that, despite this, your PI can still argue that they did more work on the project than you.)

[hcoach]

In my field authorship is determined by the authors' contributions, and according to the conventions there the one who contributed the most is first, and the PI is usually last. Another convention in a different corner of my field is to list everybody alphabetically, especially if everyone contributed equally. Whether or not the submission "will be taken seriously" because of who's first is never a consideration and anyway since review is blind I don't think it should matter. Not that it's hard to know who you are reviewing (it's a small field, I normally have a good idea of whose papers I'm reviewing and also of who reviewed mine) but that doesn't affect authorship decisions. 

 

Editors don't seem to care who is listed first and reviews are blind. If you did the analysis and wrote up the manuscript then you should be first author (unless there is some other reason that, despite this, your PI can still argue that they did more work on the project than you.)

 

Thank you for the helpful responses. My field is psychological research, and the Journal is an open access journal. I agree, the review process should be blind, so I don't see how reviewers would be impacted by authors credits. I'm going to write as best as I can, and get it edited by several other graduate students and professors in addition to my supervisors so it shouldn't reflect in the writing either. 

 

I do feel as if it will impact the supervisory relationship if I ask to be first author, but I should ask nonetheless and if he says no, then so be it. The other scenario is he reluctantly agrees and doesn't help push along the process. His contributions are that he generated the grant and designed the study, and was also central in the execution of it, so he's rightly going to be the last listed author. 

[bsharpe269]

It is actually completely normal (at least in my field) for grad students to be first authors and papers and for professors to follow since usually grad students are the ones doing most of the work and the professor just advise.

 

Edit: I just read above that he designed the study. In my field, that would probably give someone the right to first author. In general, I think that the person who comes up with research is often listed first and then the people who help 2nd. For example, I would expect to be first when we publish my data because I came up with the idea and ran it by my professor and he gave me the go ahead to do it. I hope this helps you decide!

Edited March 23, 2014 by bsharpe269

[themmases]

The conventions for authorship vary by field, but since you've talked to your advisor about this before, maybe you should talk to him again. (I find authorship is like money, and the first time you broach the subject is the worst.) Personally, if I had designed and been central to carrying out a study like your advisor, I would also expect to be first author, and if someone else wrote up the results I would be planning on being very involved in editing. One reason is that's what first authors do; anothe reason is that, if someone conceived and carried out the whole study, their editing is necessary to producing an accurate manuscript. Your advisor might be right that having a PhD first author would give the paper weight (although I'd think he means after publication, when people are choosing what to cite). He might also be trying to be tactful about whether you should really be first author.

 

If I were you, I'd put the authors in the order my advisor wanted them unless he was suggesting something wrong, like inserting an honorary author who did nothing. I'd also meet with him, make clear that I am interested in continuing to publish and taking on first author-level work (rather than just receiving first author credit), and ask what he thinks I need to do to get there. I'd ask him if there are any specific project ideas that have first author-level work left to be done on them, that I could take on.

[Scat Detector]

Keep in mind, based on your description of the situation it sounds like the data belongs to your adviser.

Since you analyzed and wrote up what sounds to be your adviser s "intellectual property" you will either have to include him in authorship or get his approval to move forward and include him in the acknowledgements since your hypotheses and analyses were "piggy backed" off of his intellectual property.

I had what would have been 2 undergrad publications but the data was not my intellectual property. The PI did not want to pursue publication of what was my own independent hypotheses and analyses. His energy was focused on other topics. As a result I used them as writing samples for prospective PhD advisers in the pre-application process. EVERYONE kept asking me why I wasn't getting the amazing stuff published. Alas the data was not my "intellectual property."

This is quite an important consideration moving forward. I certainly hope you can get it published but be careful and be sure to inquire with your adviser via email on the subject of permission to attempt publishing solo.

You want to be sure to get it in writing so you always have an email that gave you consent to use his intellectual property.

[lewin]

I'm in your field so I can speak to those norms. Your advisor's rationale is a bit silly because most review masked so prestige shouldn't matter. Moreover, I've never submitted to a journal that required authors' degrees, so BA or PhD shouldn't come into it. (APA convention is that degrees aren't listed.)

 

But here's the crux of the matter: "His contributions are that he generated the grant and designed the study, and was also central in the execution of it, so he's rightly going to be the last listed author."

 

If you stated that correctly, your conclusion is backwards.

 

When I see "designed the study" I also infer that the ideas were his in the first place. All in all, "having idea, designing study, executing it" would warrant rights to first authorship, in my opinion. Actually paying for it shouldn't matter, except to the extent that if it's grant-funded it means he developed the ideas. To be blunt, no offence intended, analyzing the data is a relatively minor contribution unless it's exceptionally complex data. Even writing the methods and results is a minor contribution compared to the other things you listed. And in writing, it's the introduction and theoretical frame that are much more critical. 

 

So in sum, I don't think you can just "push ahead" with anything without your advisor's blessing. Norms in psychology would strongly say that it's his data and ultimately his decision about how this goes.

Edited April 22, 2014 by lewin

[Scat Detector]

I'm in your field so I can speak to those norms. Your advisor's rationale is a bit silly because most review masked so prestige shouldn't matter. Moreover, I've never submitted to a journal that required authors' degrees, so BA or PhD shouldn't come into it. (APA convention is that degrees aren't listed.)

 

But here's the crux of the matter: "His contributions are that he generated the grant and designed the study, and was also central in the execution of it, so he's rightly going to be the last listed author."

 

If you stated that correctly, your conclusion is backwards.

 

When I see "designed the study" I also infer that the ideas were his in the first place. All in all, "having idea, designing study, executing it" would warrant rights to first authorship, in my opinion. Actually paying for it shouldn't matter, except to the extent that if it's grant-funded it means he developed the ideas. To be blunt, no offence intended, analyzing the data is a relatively minor contribution unless it's exceptionally complex data. Even writing the methods and results is a minor contribution compared to the other things you listed. And in writing, it's the introduction and theoretical frame that are much more critical. 

 

So in sum, I don't think you can just "push ahead" with anything without your advisor's blessing. Norms in psychology would strongly say that it's his data and ultimately his decision about how this goes.

As I am in your field as well (Animal Personality/Psychology).

I would have to agree!

[Igotnothin]

Doesn't matter if it's "his" data, you did the work, you deserve the credit. Don't settle for anything less than first authorship. Too many grad students get taken advantage of by professors that know they won't stand up for themselves.

[lewin]

Doesn't matter if it's "his" data, you did the work, you deserve the credit. Don't settle for anything less than first authorship. Too many grad students get taken advantage of by professors that know they won't stand up for themselves.

 

That's really misguided in this case. By the OP's own account of who has done what work, it's the advisor who has done most of it.

 

 

If I think of an idea, then plan and run a study, and ask you to take a look at the data to see if there's anything there, it doesn't become yours to write up as first author just because.

Edited May 2, 2014 by lewin

[fuzzylogician]

Doesn't matter if it's "his" data, you did the work, you deserve the credit. Don't settle for anything less than first authorship. Too many grad students get taken advantage of by professors that know they won't stand up for themselves.

 

First of all, it's not clear at all that in this case the OP actually deserves first authorship. Second, it does matter who the data belongs to. There are established norms about this in different fields and it's important to respect them. If you publish a paper using your advisor's data without her consent (and therefore perhaps without her as co-author at all?), assuming you somehow get this past reviewers and journal editors, you're effectively stealing. You're obviously going to get caught because there will be a publication. Once it's out, good luck ever having another collaboration, a postdoc, and perhaps a job. Stealing someone's data and publishing without their consent is a serious very offense. If I thought there was a chance a potential collaborator would unilaterally take joint work and publish it--with or without my name on it, but without my input to the paper and without my consent--I wouldn't touch them with a pole. Whatever they bring to the table, it's not worth my work being stolen or alternatively my name appearing on things I didn't authorize. Same goes for a collaborator who thinks they can unilaterally change the order of authors on the paper and submit it that way because they feel they should be first. This is even simpler if I were your potential advisor for a PhD or postdoc--I'd never take on a student who I know might suddenly decide to take a project we were working on together and proceed to publication without consulting me, under any version of what comes next (with my name/without, same/different order, etc.).

[Igotnothin]

First of all, it's not clear at all that in this case the OP actually deserves first authorship. Second, it does matter who the data belongs to. There are established norms about this in different fields and it's important to respect them. If you publish a paper using your advisor's data without her consent (and therefore perhaps without her as co-author at all?), assuming you somehow get this past reviewers and journal editors, you're effectively stealing. You're obviously going to get caught because there will be a publication. Once it's out, good luck ever having another collaboration, a postdoc, and perhaps a job. Stealing someone's data and publishing without their consent is a serious very offense. If I thought there was a chance a potential collaborator would unilaterally take joint work and publish it--with or without my name on it, but without my input to the paper and without my consent--I wouldn't touch them with a pole. Whatever they bring to the table, it's not worth my work being stolen or alternatively my name appearing on things I didn't authorize. Same goes for a collaborator who thinks they can unilaterally change the order of authors on the paper and submit it that way because they feel they should be first. This is even simpler if I were your potential advisor for a PhD or postdoc--I'd never take on a student who I know might suddenly decide to take a project we were working on together and proceed to publication without consulting me, under any version of what comes next (with my name/without, same/different order, etc.).

 

The question is not whether the PI is on the paper, it's whether the PI should be first even though the OP did all the work. Read this quote and tell me it's reasonable:

 

"The rationale is that reviewers are more likely to take it seriously if it's a PhD in front..."

 

That is a PI using leverage and pressure to take credit for somebody else's work. Simple as that. The responses here look like a typical case of grad cafe people trying so hard not be biased in favor of students that they are biased in favor of professors.

[fuzzylogician]

The question is not whether the PI is on the paper, it's whether the PI should be first even though the OP did all the work. Read this quote and tell me it's reasonable:

 

"The rationale is that reviewers are more likely to take it seriously if it's a PhD in front..."

 

I agree that this rationale is unreasonable (in fact, I have an earlier post in this thread saying just that). However, I am reading this quote from a later post: 

His contributions are that he generated the grant and designed the study, and was also central in the execution of it, so he's rightly going to be the last listed author. 

Those actions, in my field, get you first authorship. I assume that generating the grant and designing the study also means coming up with the idea that this project was based on. The PI is then also heavily involved in the execution of the study, and the OP did some analyses on the results. At least in my field, doing the analysis will get you on the authors list but by itself it wouldn't make you first. Coming up with the idea is the hardest part, and next (I think) is spelling it out convincingly and in enough details so that you can get the study funded. Execution and analysis are of course also important, but those are things that are easier to delegate to people who become secondary contributors to the paper. 

 

 

That is a PI using leverage and pressure to take credit for somebody else's work. Simple as that. The responses here look like a typical case of grad cafe people trying so hard not be biased in favor of students that they are biased in favor of professors.

 

Yeah, if the OP had done all the work and then the PI had given that excuse. But it looks like the PI is the main person on this project and deserves first authorship. I don't know why they would explain it the OP quotes, that's an odd thing to say given the more straightforward "I did the work, I deserve the credit." 

 

 

Edit: Also, "typical case of grad cafe people blah blah blah" -- please. With 60 posts and less than a month as a member, maybe you want to read some more before you make these ridiculous claims. Long-time posters regularly take time out of their day to write thoughtful responses trying to help people deal with difficult situations. We support people who come here with issues that we think are justified, and we're not afraid to say when we thing someone's misinterpreting their situation. In this case, in my opinion, the OP is actually not seeing the whole picture given the details they gave. I've tried to explain why I think that. If you disagree with my reasoning, feel free to tell us why and we can have a discussion.

Edited May 3, 2014 by fuzzylogician

[Igotnothin]

I was with you until the "You only have 60 posts" comment. I've actually been a member for over 2 years - signed up in April 2012, not April 2014. But anyway, trying to gauge someone's credibility based on the number of posts/length of membership doesn't make a whole lot of sense. That's something I used to do on video game message boards as a 12-year old. Two stars, this guy must be good!

[Broken_Bottle]

I suppose hcoach solved the problem by now but in case someone else comes across this thread: In psychology, it is also a question of who is paying for the publication. Publishing my undergrad thesis is going to cost me ~$400 - because it is usually the first author who pays the money (at least at the 2 unis I know). My supervisors had talked about it behind my back and decided that they would throw in the money if I couldn't afford it before we even talked about it (because they're awesome! - still gonna pay myself though).

However, if your supervisor suggests being 1st author although you've contributed about as much to the project as he/she did, then money might be the reason. Especially because people don't talk much about this factor in publications and it could be uncomfortable to talk about it with a new grad student. Just my 2 ct.

Edited August 24, 2014 by Broken_Bottle

[random17]

I know this thread is old, but I just want to point out that in my STEM field, it is not at all expected that a student will pay publishing costs in exchange for being first author! If you're grant-funded in a STEM field, there is almost defintely money written into the grant for publishing fees. These fees should be paid by the grant, usually with the lead PI as a co-author on the paper (or the last author, depending on your field). I don't know conventions for people not funded by grants, but grad students definitely shouldn't assume that they can't be first author unless they have a spare $400 lying around!

[lewin]

In psychology, it is also a question of who is paying for the publication. Publishing my undergrad thesis is going to cost me ~$400 - because it is usually the first author who pays the money (at least at the 2 unis I know). My supervisors had talked about it behind my back and decided that they would throw in the money if I couldn't afford it before we even talked about it (because they're awesome! - still gonna pay myself though).

 

I'm desperately curious which area of psychology you're in or which journals you're sending to because I'm in social psychology and this is NOT the case for any of the reasonably ranked journals (e.g., JPSP, PSPB, JESP, Psych Science, SPPS). It must be different in your subfield because this is really, really bizarre to me.

[Guest |||]

I'm desperately curious which area of psychology you're in or which journals you're sending to because I'm in social psychology and this is NOT the case for any of the reasonably ranked journals (e.g., JPSP, PSPB, JESP, Psych Science, SPPS). It must be different in your subfield because this is really, really bizarre to me.

 

Its really not that bizarre

 

ultimately someone has to pay for journals and it is either the person submitting or the person subscribing

 

I'd personally be content if the rest of my publications came through under the journal of vision

[bsharpe269]

I have never ever heard of a student paying for a publication. Grant money should cover these costs as well as travel to show research at conferences or anything else research related.

[Guest |||]

right, it shouldnt be you paying from your personal bank account of course

[fuzzylogician]

I have never ever heard of a student paying for a publication. Grant money should cover these costs as well as travel to show research at conferences or anything else research related.

 

Not every field has grant money to cover students' travel expenses for conferences, etc. I've also encountered some people paying out of pocket to run their own experiments, to advance their research (usually small experiments in the social sciences). I haven't heard of anyone paying to have their paper published in a journal--I suspect that this kind of funding scheme just wouldn't be sustainable in a field where there isn't a lot of grant money--but I really would not be shocked to find that such a field does in fact exist.

[lewin]

Its really not that bizarre

 

ultimately someone has to pay for journals and it is either the person submitting or the person subscribing

 

I'd personally be content if the rest of my publications came through under the journal of vision

 

I should have been more specific. I know it's common in other fields but I've never seen it in my area of psychology, which I think was also the OP's but maybe not this more recent poster's. Mea culpa.