Authorship

[Dal PhDer]

Last year my advisor gave me data that was collected back in 2006 and suggested that I do some analysis and get a publication out of this to help contribute to my CV/scholarships/etc. I have spent the last year doing data analysis, presenting this data (as first author) at an international conference and an in-house symposium, and back in Feb submitted a draft of my paper to him for edits.

As the project was done with a few of his colleagues, he edited my draft slightly (I saw the revisions) and sent it out to them for comments in May. He has just sent me their comments and asked me to address them and do the edits so we can submitted, but I notice that I am now not first author, but last...he (my advisor) is first author and corresponding author (which I understand as it's his data and lab).

Now, I felt during our conversations about publications and increasing my presence as a competitive scholar he indicated that this would be a great opportunity for me to get a first author publication- but perhaps I was mistaken and just assumed way too much.

What are other peoples' experiences with authorship? How is authorship determined? And any advice on how to approach.

I was just going to straight up talk to him about my assumption of first author...I kind of feel that I've been duped a bit. We also agreed I would write another paper (which I am waiting for him to review) on a workshop we conducted together...the conversation (and my assumption) were the same on that one as well...but I kind of feel as though the exact same thing will happen again on that one. I don't want to be lead into a situation where I do all the work thinking I will get first authorship and then after all is said an done it's submitted and I'm last author. But maybe that's how it works? Thoughts?

[TakeruK]

In my experience, the person writing the actual paper is almost always first author. However, authorship is usually discussed right away, before we even start. In one collaboration (a large one, ~30 people), upon joining the collaboration, we all signed a contract the stipulated authorship terms (the person in charge of each analysis/data set was the first author, then everyone else in ABC order). In another team, I had worked on something and wrote a draft where I was the first author. I included the author list in the very first draft and we discussed that almost right away. Eventually, my work term ended and went back to full time classes but the stuff I did wasn't really publishable yet. We decided that another person would take over and polish it off and I would move down to second author (they gave me the choice of coming into the lab between classes/after hours to finish this up and keep first authorship but I decided I should spend time in my honours thesis instead).

Due to all the conversations about paper writing (and that one contract) from my research experiences, I get the feeling that authorship is something that has to be determined right from the start, or misunderstandings like this case commonly happen. I think the first warning sign in your case would have been when your supervisor edited the draft him/herself and then sent the draft to others for comments. If you were still in charge of the paper, then your supervisor would have just sent his notes to you and then suggest that you forward the draft onto the others -- i.e. you would be the primary contact for everything related to this. I'm not trying to criticize, or say it's your fault etc. because hindsight is 20/20 and it really did sound like you had every reason to think you would be first author -- especially since the supervisor said this was something to help you gain recognition as a scholar. Just pointing out something for the future.

I don't have experience in your exact situation (i.e. author list changing after the fact) but I would definitely encourage you to talk about this with him to clear up any misunderstandings. Especially since you plan to write more papers with him -- this could also be a good time to confirm authorship of that review paper with him too! For future work with future scholars, I would also recommend that authorship is one of the first things discussed, along with dividing up the work e.g. who is going to be responsible for what. Sometimes an opportunity to do that is missed, or never comes up, so what I like to do is include the author list in the very very first draft and if your supervisor doesn't comment on it, make sure to bring it up at the meeting -- something like "oh by the way, I wasn't sure what the author list should look like so I put my best guess, what do you think?"

[Dal PhDer]

Thanks Takeruk!

I do agree that authorship should be discussed at the start. My work with my MA advisor was very much - you take the lead on this paper, I will edit and review, but you will be first author. Much like the research work I've done for groups...it's discussed that whoever takes the lead on the paper is first author, and those who contribute (RAs, RCs, Co-PIs, etc.) will be put on the publication as well.

I am wondering if perhaps he put his name first to expedite the feedback response from the other two...as they might be more likely to put a paper by a student on the back burner. My only fear is if they edit and put comments on a paper with his name first on it, when it comes to publication they'll expect the authorship to stay the same.

I have learnt a very valuable lesson in that I must be clear at the start if this will be a first author publication for me, or simply something I am adding a contribution to and will have my name somewhere in the authorship list.

I also don't want to come across as expecting more than I should or giving the sense that I have a sense of entitlement to something that I shouldn't....but I feel that if a student does the data cleaning, analysis and paper write up 100% on their own, and then distributes it to the group for feedback, that they should receive first authorship....especially when they were asked to do it, and it went over and above their work, course, and dissertation duties. This paper is not my background and to be honest- is not related AT ALL to my previous or current work. It took time to read and learn the background literature and information for me. I am grateful for the opportunity and experience in writing/researching for a publication, but it took a considerable amount of time and effort out of my regular work duties. I don't want to feel like my advisor was getting heat from others to publish this data and then took advantage of me to get it done. If he's first author, I kind of feel that he should have spent more than 1 read through and a few grammar edits to get the authorship.

I guess I am wondering what others' experiences are on authorship...and what they think I should do to proceed. I mean he certainly took the time and effort to reorder the authorship from what I had it, so he is conscious of what he did...i just don't know how to approach it.

[Sigaba]

@Dal PhDer--

Is there any way that you can find more information on how these situations are handled in your specific field?

For example, if your department has a "go to" person who has a well earned reputation for addressing issues between graduate students and faculty members, she may be able to give you a solution. (Keep in mind that this solution may be an option you don't like.)

Also, there may be a discussion of this type of situation -- and others -- in the academic journals most closely associated with your field.

As you develop a plan for how you're going to communicate with your adviser about this issue, I strongly recommend that you develop a list of preferred/acceptable/unacceptable outcomes. From what you've written, it seems that you want first authorship, an acknowledgement that your adviser changed up what you thought were agreed upon points, and also acknowledgement of the hard work that you did to get this paper done. What will be your plan B and your plan C if you can only get one or two--or none--of these concessions?

Additionally, give considerable thought to the means of communication. Are you going to raise the point via email? Are you going to do it informally over coffee? Are you going to make an appointment? Are you going to ask for a third party to sit in? Are your communications going to assume good faith on his part or are you going to hold to the narrative you're developing in this thread? (Both approaches have their advantages and their disadvantages--just have a sense which approach is going to best help you get the outcome that you prefer.)

What ever you do, I very strongly recommend that you keep your cards very close to your vest until you decide to act. Also, do what you can to maintain a high level of dispassion. Don't get too low if the guy ends up being really shady on this. Don't get too high if this shakes out beyond your highest expectations. This thing is important to you--and it should be. But, ultimately, it is just a thing.

[Dal PhDer]

Thanks Sigaba!

My feeling of the entire situation is that whatever the outcome is, I know I have to work with him for the next few years and will need to be in his good graces, so I don't want to burn any bridges with him. I do feel that writing for publication has many benefits and positive outcomes aside from authorship- so I have gained something by this experience.

I have a casual meeting with him on Wed and felt that this might be a good time to bring it up as we will be discussing the progress of the paper. Ideally I would like to have first authorship (Plan A) [he is not a person to give praise or verbally reward a student for a good job so hoping for that is a lost cause!], but if he says that the authorship is the way it will stay, I will just accept it. I don't know if this is the best method, but I think it's a learning experience and shows a lot more of about him...and in the future I will pursue publications outside of his guidance.

Unfortunately, there is no one in my department that can handle this. Our graduate coordinator (who would be the person to go to) is currently on leave until Sept and there is no replacement...so I am a bit out of luck. I may go to a Post-doc in our lab and chat with her about the situation. We're quite close and she is often filled with really great advice and experience. She would be able to let me know her experience with writing with him, and perhaps give me some advice on my expectations.

I am certainly cautious that I don't want to go into my meeting with him with my guns blazing and a chip on my shoulder.

[fuzzylogician]

It sounds like you have a good attitude towards this situation, which is really commendable. One thing you may want to get out of your meeting, in addition to what Sigaba and other have already mentioned, is a way to avoid similar conflicts in the future. Whatever the outcome is for this paper - whether you get to be first author or not - you should agree on how authorship should be decided in the future. Ideally, this question should come up as soon as a project is started (or, as soon as it becomes clear that it's successful and there will be a paper, but honestly that way of doing things has always struck me as potentially problematic). There can, of course, be reasons to rethink authorship after the project is already underway - e.g. if the main person on the project moves away and stops being a main contributor - but that aside, it should be clear who the first author is and what responsibilities are attached to being first/second/etc.

[Eigen]

There's definitely a huge difference between fields, but the guideline my PI likes to use is that the first author should have done >80% of the work on the paper.

In most of the physical sciences and engineering disciplines, the corresponding author (PI) is almost always the last author on a paper, and the graduate student that did the vast majority of both the research and the writing is the first author. As such, it would look quite bad on several levels for a PI to be the first author on a paper- it indicates they aren't transitioning well to the role of PI, and sometimes can be construed as not properly overseeing their graduate students.

I know the same isn't true for a lot of the social sciences and humanities, so the above comments from Sigaba may be more helpful.

We just had a project where I went from second author, to second author (both contributed equally to this work) to first author (both contributed equally to this work), so there are definitely changes along the writing process, but I agree that much of it should be discussed beforehand, as well as along the way immediately if anything changes or looks like it might change.

[AbaNader]

Thanks Sigaba!

My feeling of the entire situation is that whatever the outcome is, I know I have to work with him for the next few years and will need to be in his good graces, so I don't want to burn any bridges with him. I do feel that writing for publication has many benefits and positive outcomes aside from authorship- so I have gained something by this experience.

I have a casual meeting with him on Wed and felt that this might be a good time to bring it up as we will be discussing the progress of the paper. Ideally I would like to have first authorship (Plan A) [he is not a person to give praise or verbally reward a student for a good job so hoping for that is a lost cause!], but if he says that the authorship is the way it will stay, I will just accept it. I don't know if this is the best method, but I think it's a learning experience and shows a lot more of about him...and in the future I will pursue publications outside of his guidance.

Unfortunately, there is no one in my department that can handle this. Our graduate coordinator (who would be the person to go to) is currently on leave until Sept and there is no replacement...so I am a bit out of luck. I may go to a Post-doc in our lab and chat with her about the situation. We're quite close and she is often filled with really great advice and experience. She would be able to let me know her experience with writing with him, and perhaps give me some advice on my expectations.

I am certainly cautious that I don't want to go into my meeting with him with my guns blazing and a chip on my shoulder.

An idea:

Ask him "out of professional curiosity": how much more work is normally expected from someone to assume first authorship? I want to become the first author on a paper, for my career, and I really want to know what it takes to get that.

If you ask him like that, you aren't brushing up against him or directly challenging his decision to relegate you to the last author but rather just asking for his advice. When he does explain what it normally takes to get first authorship, ask inquisitively about what he thinks of the level of your work in the current paper, i.e., how much more would warrant first authorship in his opinion. You can ask him questions like, is authorship based more on brute work or idea input or critical analysis, etc. Of course, I am just speaking roughly since you'll have to word it carefully so he doesn't misconstrue what you're saying.

If after all that 10-15 minute discussion he still doesn't offer to change authorship or defer your first authorship to a future paper or some other accomodation, IMHO you should just ignore it. He has already made a mental note of your thinking/objectives and its not worth butting heads with him on noncritical issues early on in your PhD career.

Good luck!

[fuzzylogician]

If after all that 10-15 minute discussion he still doesn't offer to change authorship or defer your first authorship to a future paper or some other accomodation, IMHO you should just ignore it. He has already made a mental note of your thinking/objectives and its not worth butting heads with him on noncritical issues early on in your PhD career.

I generally like the ideas in this post, but -- from personal experience -- if you don't deal with this issue now, you're likely to run up against it again later in your career, when it does matter. I don't know how experienced your advisor is, but one of two options seem likely. If he's experienced, he must have a process for determining authorship. Find out what it is, and follow the rules for getting first authorship - on future papers, if not this one. I agree that it may not be worth it to fight over this one if you have to continue working with this person in the future, but it's good to let him know your aspirations. If your advisor is new or otherwise inexperienced, he may not have thought this question through. In that case, you should bring it up. You should have ideas of how you'd like things to go, in case you're asked (though you may not be - it depends on his style). For new advisors, it's difficult to see all the pitfalls in advance, and it's going to be partly your job to learn along with them. This will be good for your personal development as a scholar and it'll be important so you can avoid such situations in the future.

[AbaNader]

To the OP: any new developments?

[Elimba]

Well, this is a very delicate situation. On the one hand you are trying to have control over your creation while knowning that the underlying data collected is not the fruit of your labor.

On the other hand, your advisor is claiming first authorship of a paper built over data he/she owns. As a new PhD student you should play it cool and accept the rules of the game being played in your lab. for now.

By putting his/her name first, your advisor is reminding you who is in control of this yet-to-be-accepted article. If this is a real issue with you, please ask the other graduate students around your adviser what their experience has been with him/her.

Personnaly, as a graduate student and then as a Professor, I have run into similar conflicts. For me it wasn't a big deal. In most cases, I would put my students' names first on a paper to make them feel good about themselves (C.V. , travel to conferences) when the content was their work and I did the nice writing (translation, structure, layout, appeal) of the article.

When I was a graduate student, I would rather stick to my guns with first authorship when I sweat the data and writing but made sure my adviser was OK with that. It's subtle game of give and take.

More than 10 years later, I still have an excellent relationship with my former adviser and Professors.

Your ties with your adviser and the Professors of your institution are very important for your future career. Do not sacrifice these ties now and have to regret it later.

I hope this helps Mocha.

Good luck.

[lewin]

The arrangement where you write but are not lead author isn't completely uncommon but, as others have mentioned, in retrospect there should have been a frank discussion at the outset so you could make an informed decision. For example, my advisor has approached grad students to say, "I have these data but no time to write them up. Do you want to write the paper and be second author?"

You could consider letting this paper go but saying to your advisor, "I really like these ideas and enjoyed writing them up. Is there a possibility that I could have more direct involvement with the followup studies and take the lead on phase two of the project? [insert awesome study ideas here] "

ETA: Also, while this situation stinks because of the lack of transparency, it's not necessarily out of line for your advisor to be first author. Authorship isn't just determined by the writing, but also by providing ideas, strategy, study design, data analysis, etc....

Edited July 24, 2012 by lewin00

[Dal PhDer]

**Ahh!! I ran out of votes before I finished!!**

Thank you for all the great advice. I have done a lot of what you guys have mentioned.

I have asked some of the other students in the lab, and they felt it was out of character and not how they have experienced writing with other professors. The only student that has published with him was his post-doc, but he co-supervises her, so it might be that the other prof pushed for her to be first, or he didn't challenge it at all.

Having mulled what I wanted to do over and over in my head, I felt that it was best to approach the topic (only once) and in a very casual and non-abrasive way. During our last meeting we were discussing the edits on the paper and I approached the topic is probably the most awkward and embarrassing way, but I simply said (something to this effect):

Me: I hate to bring up this type of conversation and I don't mean to be confrontational, but the authorship on the paper seems to have changed. Based on our original conversation about me gaining more publications, I had thought we agreed that I would be first author (insert a variety of faces where I smile, squint, bite my lip, and turn red)

Prof: Oh, what happened to the authorship?

Me: Well on my draft it went me, you, prof x, prof y, lab associate.

Prof: what is it now?

Me: you, prof x, prof y, lab associate, me

Prof: Oh, well....someone else must have changed it ***NOTE: this is to my knowledge impossible, as both the track changes edits from the other prof had the authorship this way with no edits***

Me: Oh...okay. Well do you-

Prof: (interrupting me) In some fields it's an honor to be last author it denotes being the main contributor to the project.

Me: Oh...like a PI being the boss over the lab he supervises?

Prof: Yeah. So it can actually be a compliment.

Me: Oh, well...I was hoping I would be able to put this in as a first author pubble, for scholarships- to increase my publication record and competitiveness.

Prof: They don't look at authorship- they just look at research work. They won't care that you're not first author.

Me: Oh. Okay...

And so I left it. I got the feeling that he wasn't going to change, nor actually admit that he changed it. I didn't want to push it forward and will just remember in the future tobe really clear about this sort of thing. I learned a lot in this...but I do feel this must happen to a lot of students. I kind of feel he knows I am a bit of a push over (he called one of the other girls in his lab not tough enough to be an academic)...and I get the feeling he gets the same vibe from me.....oy!

Thanks for the support! I wish it went better! Hopefully this doesn't happen to anyone else!

[TakeruK]

Thanks for the update! Sorry it didn't go as well as you hoped. Being a non-confrontational person myself, the same thing probably would have happened to me.

But at least you brought it up so he knows you noticed. Maybe he concluded that he can just do this again next time, but it's probably still better than not saying anything. At the very least, if he was 100% not going to change it no matter how hard you fought, then at least this outcome doesn't really damage any working relationships. And now you know this about future work with him.

[lewin]

Thanks for the update! And I want to compliment your quick thinking in saying, "Oh, like a PI on the lab he supervises?" That was a good hint on your part and it's too bad he didn't take that opportunity to switch things back. From your transcript it looks like you pushed as hard as you could without it getting weird.

Though his comment, "In some fields..." is a bit disingenuous. Other fields don't matter; only yours does. And in my field people only make the "last = main contributor" assumption when the last author is very clearly senior. Grad students don't get that courtesy. I have a major paper where another grad student and I are first and second author, our advisor is third. He joked, "I don't mind being last, they'll assume it was my idea anyway." In humour, truth.

And being vague about changing it is squirrely too. He should grow a spine and own up to his decisions. (Though it is easy to flip track changes off temporarily so it's not impossible that the other prof did it.)

In the future it might be a good idea to (casually) get important things written down in an email. ("I just want to confirm what we talked about today in our meeting....")

ETA: "They don't look at authorship- they just look at research work. They won't care that you're not first author." In my field this would be blatantly false.

Edited July 25, 2012 by lewin00

[Dal PhDer]

Thank you TakeruK and lewin!

I actually feel a bit better that both of you think I did a respectable job! Because I am so non-confrontational, I sometimes find it hard to evaluate a situation and be like "did I do the right thing? Was I too much of a push over?" So it's nice to have the opinions!

I do agree with you lewin that the authorship for scholarship comment is completely BS. I know for a fact that authorship matters for the national scholarship that I will be applying to next year. And the worst part was, is their comments this year were that I needed more publications...ahh! BUT- I can only do what I can do. This is all a learning experience, for me and for him.

I am glad I brought it up and talked to him. I think it might have shown him (just a tiny little bit) that I am not what he calls "too soft for academics"!

[rising_star]

Dal,

Honestly, if you think that your advisor may already think that you're not serious enough, then you did yourself a disservice by not pushing him harder. You need to seriously sit down and talk with him to understand how your future publications will go and explain, right now, that you don't appreciate doing all of the work and then being listed as the last author. If you aren't clear about this now, then it will happen to you again. Best of luck. And thanks for providing us with an update on the situation.

[Dal PhDer]

Dal,

Honestly, if you think that your advisor may already think that you're not serious enough, then you did yourself a disservice by not pushing him harder. You need to seriously sit down and talk with him to understand how your future publications will go and explain, right now, that you don't appreciate doing all of the work and then being listed as the last author. If you aren't clear about this now, then it will happen to you again. Best of luck. And thanks for providing us with an update on the situation.

Hi There,

Thank you for the advice. I guess it's not that he doesn't think I am serious enough for it, I just believe that he might think this. Why I get this feeling is because when his post-doc was applying for an academic position in the department, he told her she didn't have the skin to be an academic and should pursue it. It might just be me, but I get the feeling he feels this way for most of his "woman" students!

How should I go about discussing this issue with him? For me, I think the most professional thing to do is let it slide, realize the situation, and in the future if he asks me to engage in writing with him, make it clear (in writing) the authorship. I am fortunate enough to have my fingers in enough pots that by the time scholarship season comes around, I will have 3 additional articles in press (mind you, I am not first author on any of them). As of now, I feel it's best for my career and future to remain on his good side and take a publication hit, then get the publication but burn some 'ego' bridges.

As I am not a confrontational person, how might I approach the topic, rising_star? I would greatly appreciate the advice, because I know in the future, if things continue to travel down the path that they are, I am probably going to have to have a few hard conversations with him.

[lewin]

Honestly, if you think that your advisor may already think that you're not serious enough, then you did yourself a disservice by not pushing him harder. You need to seriously sit down and talk with him to understand how your future publications will go and explain, right now, that you don't appreciate doing all of the work and then being listed as the last author. If you aren't clear about this now, then it will happen to you again.

I feel like telling off your advisor in that way is a quick trip to lost opportunities. It's a crappy power imbalance but that's how it goes. I do agree that (diplomatic) clarity is important for future projects.

[Dal PhDer]

I feel like telling off your advisor in that way is a quick trip to lost opportunities. It's a crappy power imbalance but that's how it goes. I do agree that (diplomatic) clarity is important for future projects.

It is a crappy imbalance of power...and it's also a tiring game of egos!

[ANDS!]

You shouldn't have qualified your desire for the first authorship with "I need it for. . ." - essentially giving the man an out. You need it because it is rightfully yours. At this point though I suppose you've missed that window unless you REALLY want to push this point and there are no other opportunities to make up for this missed one.

[fuzzylogician]

Dal PhDer, maybe there is still a way you can fix this, but it depends on how much you are wiling to fight. Are you actively working on this draft now? One thing to do, next time you are looking at it with your advisor (or it comes back to you with someone's comments) is simply bring the issue up again and say something along the lines of - I think I should be first author and you said in our last meeting that you were not the one who changed the order - so I would like it to go back to the way it was. One comment I got on my fellowship app was that I needed more first-authored papers, and I was counting on this being one of them. Is that ok with you?

That is, be very direct about what you want, and point out that he essentially agreed with your position in your previous conversation. I cannot stress this enough - if you don't stand up for yourself, this will happen again.

Edited July 26, 2012 by fuzzylogician

[Dal PhDer]

Thank you guys for the feedback and comments.

I find it really difficult approach my advisor (based on our personality differences) and, as you have said, stand up for myself. I do think this is a learning opportunity, and every encounter I have with him is certainly adding another layer to my tough shell!

If I am honest, and it would be good to get your opinion, is when I resubmit the paper with the edits included- I was just going to change the authorship to how I originally had it (me first!). It might be a bit passive agressive, but if he commented on it again, I was going to stress to him that I took on this project with the understanding that I would be first author. And then bring up (from my previous documented meeting notes), that he also feels that I need more first author publications to be competitive. I am lucky I have saved all my meeting notes and send them to him after every meeting.

I think if I give it a bit of time, I can go back into the ring for one more try and battle it out. I even think he might respect me a bit if I push him on the topic.

[fuzzylogician]

Honestly, I don't like this solution very much. It's one step removed from not doing anything at all, but it's not much better. The way you really want this to go is that you tell your advisor you want to be put back as first author and ask him and all your other co-authors to approve this. I understand that it requires some confrontation and that it may be difficult for you, but I think you're treading into dangerous ground by just changing authorship without asking -- it's not your place and you don't have the authority. If you do that, you may enter into a power struggle with your advisor and let me assure you - you will lose. Even if you're fully justified in that you should be first, you can't just change authorship on a paper unilaterally. It should be done with everyone's agreement - you can explain why you should be first, what was promised to you, what you did, that your advisor agreed previously, etc. But decisions are made together. If despite promises and fairness, your advisor insists on essentially not giving you due credit on your work, you need to be prepared and consider your next step. You can fully expect this problem to repeat itself, and if you can't fix it now maybe you just need to cut your losses and find someone to work with how will help you advance your career in an appropriate way.

ETA: I just reread the post and realized it sounds kind of harsh. My take on this situation is that your advisor is "testing" you. You need to push back and not let him get away with this. My guess is that he'll respect you more and stop trying to mess with you (at least temporarily), if you do.

Edited July 28, 2012 by fuzzylogician

[TakeruK]

Even if you're fully justified in that you should be first, you can't just change authorship on a paper unilaterally. It should be done with everyone's agreement - you can explain why you should be first, what was promised to you, what you did, that your advisor agreed previously, etc.

I think this is very important to consider, because if you change the order yourself, then you're just doing the same thing that your advisor (or someone else) did. And in this kind of fight, the higher rank generally wins.

The only hesitation I'd have over, for example, sending an email with the edits to all the co-authors and making a case that you should be first author is that it's going over your supervisor's head. This might be what you want, but it's definitely escalating things, and your supervisor might just fight you even more to "save face" in front of his peers. However, this escalation might be necessary if there is no way your supervisor will listen to you about this. You could also consider bringing up discussing the authorship order with the coauthors in your next meeting with the supervisor?

You could also discuss getting to 2nd author instead of first author if you don't want to escalate things too much since you do want to work with your supervisor (and potentially the coauthors?) in the future?