PI Writes Our Papers For Us - Should I Be Concerned?

[wolfie]

I'm in the physical sciences and have just started my PhD program.

 

The PI whose group I'm currently rotating in is an Associate professor. He admitted himself that he writes all the papers in the lab. The students get 1st, 2nd & 3rd author according to who did the actual research - the process is transparent and fair enough - and they create & edit the supporting info.

 

According to the students the PI might occasionally solicite a first draft from the "first author" student, only to say "this is good"...and rewrite 90% of it into his own words anyway.

 

I have two questions.

1. Is this common practice in the physical sciences?

 

2. How worried should I be about this? (I mean, I know it's a symptom of a larger micro-managing problem - that's a topic for another day) If I continue on to a postdoctoral position, I would be expected to know how to write my own papers, yes?

[snowshoes]

This is NOT a standard practice, in fact, this is very, very odd.

 

I have never heard of this before and assume the PI is doing so to get papers out fast.  Will he end up putting his name first in the end? 

 

You should refuse to be a part of this for many reasons.  Your name and reputation is on that paper.  Sure, you get to "edit" the paper that you are the first author of, but what if you don't like it in the end?  This guy needs his publication count and it sounds like quality isn't the number one issue.  Also, you should be the one writing your own research up and going through the peer review process. You will be missing out on a very, very important process.  If you do a post doc you will never have someone "writing your own papers", this is absurd.

 

A huge red flag popped up when you described your situation.  This is not normal in any way, and if you go with the flow you may end up with a bunch of papers, but you will be missing out on critical experience as a PhD student and may be getting your name on subpar quality work that you may not be proud of.  It sounds like you are part of a micro-managing publication mill headed by a very nervous and worried associate prof. 

 

If I were in your position I would clearly state that I will be writing my own papers and appreciate any feedback and help he can give me along the way.  I wouldn't be rude about it, but I would say that it is important I gain this experience and learn to be self sufficient.

 

Again, this is not normal and I wouldn't fall into this trap.

[TakeruK]

The way you describe it is not normal. In the physical sciences (at least in my field), the first author is the one who did most of the writing and the one who corresponds with the journal etc. snowshoes already discussed all the reasons to avoid this situation!

 

However, it is normal for a PI to heavily edit the writing of the student's drafts, especially earlier in the student's career. It's not uncommon for a student's final submission to actually contain less than half of the student's original writing. But, all of these suggested changes from the supervisor should be presented as suggestions for the student to consider and then discuss and/or implement them. This would be a good way for a student to learn how to write papers by the time they graduate!

 

In my field, it's also normal for multiple people to write up different parts of a paper -- i.e. if different sections describe different analysis by different people, the lead author might ask these other people to write up their own sections and then the lead author puts everything together. 

 

Because of these factors, it might be common that a paper that you are first author on might not end up having the "tone" of your natural writing style. I think this is okay! But it sounds like this PI wants to skip the "internal discussion" phase of writing, which is the most helpful to the student!

[Eigen]

What the OP mentions is pretty normal for my field, and several I've intersected with, although it all depends on the PI. 

 

I've seen it go one of two ways- the PI solicits a draft, and then heavily edits it, or writes most of the draft, asking the first author to write bits and pieces as needed. 

 

Generally, the PI in the physical and biological sciences is last author, and the grad student that did most of the writing/work is first author. 

 

I've never seen a grad student or post-doc listed as corresponding author (that's the PI) or the one who wrote the cover letter/did any communications with the journal. Again, that's usually the PI. 

 

More senior grad students who have shown they are solid writers might get more control of their papers- I probably have written 90% of the final language in my last paper, and written drafts of most of the correspondence to reviewers/editors, but they've all come from my PI to the journal, not from me. 

 

Snowshoes, I'm not sure what field you're in, that could have an effect on how you view this, and TakeruK, if I recall you're not in a lab science. 

 

In lab sciences, in general, the responsibility for the paper process comes from the PI of the lab. Grad students can start drafts, suggest directions, and help get things rolling, but the ultimate decision of what the lab publishes, when and where is up to the PI. 

[TakeruK]

Snowshoes, I'm not sure what field you're in, that could have an effect on how you view this, and TakeruK, if I recall you're not in a lab science. 

 

In lab sciences, in general, the responsibility for the paper process comes from the PI of the lab. Grad students can start drafts, suggest directions, and help get things rolling, but the ultimate decision of what the lab publishes, when and where is up to the PI. 

 

That's a good point -- I guess this is one of the cases where although we are both in the physical sciences, things do work differently for the lab-based groups/fields! 

[Eigen]

Yeah, I know the same applies for other field based sciences that I have friends in- say Ecology vs Molecular Biology. 

[Usmivka]

Yeah, I know the same applies for other field based sciences that I have friends in- say Ecology vs Molecular Biology.

 I do all paper correspondence, submission, reviewer responses if I'm the first author. Same is true for the other grad students for whom I know anything about their lab dynamics, regardless of field (within an admittedly limited subset, but it does include folks in traditional chemistry and physics departments). I think this may be more institution or advisor specific. Perhaps the opening poster should ask other students in his/her department? Regardless, I think it is poor form for the advisor to take all writing tasks. You do need practice to become a good paper writer, and you are expected to be able to write grant proposals and papers as a postdoc.

Edited September 29, 2013 by Usmivka

[Eigen]

It's possible. I don't know anyone at my R1 in the lab sciences that does it all on their own, most of it is moderately to heavily mediated by the last author, and that's what reviewers in my discipline expect. They would look at cover letters from a first author grad student quite skeptically. 

 

It's also what I see when I review for journals- correspondence is always from the last author. 

 

But then, the same is true for most of the post-docs I know. They aren't expected to do the writing for papers primarily on their own, either, although it's much more transitional than with grad students. 

[snowshoes]

In lab sciences, in general, the responsibility for the paper process comes from the PI of the lab. Grad students can start drafts, suggest directions, and help get things rolling, but the ultimate decision of what the lab publishes, when and where is up to the PI. 

This is very different from the two labs I have been in.  In each case, the students/post-docs were given a lot more freedom than in the situation you describe.  I believe my research potential would be hindered if I was in a lab such as the ones described in this thread.  Heck, I have even published a few papers where I was the sole author, because I devised and conducted all research and writing by myself. 

 

I have chosen where I wanted to publish in all of my first author publications.  I discussed it with the other authors and my supervisor of course, but ultimately when and where I published was my decision.  I always have a couple side projects on the go that are independent of my thesis and the PI's agenda.  It's all about maturing as a researcher and loving to ask questions and find ways to answer them.

 

I suppose it has a lot to do with the "academic status" of you supervisor, funding, their mentoring style, and their sense of control over their lab and personnel. 

[Eigen]

Just out of curiosity, what area are you in?

For us, it's all about the funding. The only way to publish as a sole author would be to completely support the research, and that's not going to happen in any of the areas I work- no grants for grad students, and very expensive.

It would be considered unethical then to not have the person with the grant, and hence the initial general idea, on the paper. Even my side projects re being funded from those grants.

The only exceptions for me are some articles I'm working on for educational journals based on outreach, since those revere entirely mine.

[snowshoes]

Just out of curiosity, what area are you in?

For us, it's all about the funding. The only way to publish as a sole author would be to completely support the research, and that's not going to happen in any of the areas I work- no grants for grad students, and very expensive.

It would be considered unethical then to not have the person with the grant, and hence the initial general idea, on the paper. Even my side projects re being funded from those grants.

The only exceptions for me are some articles I'm working on for educational journals based on outreach, since those revere entirely mine.

 

I am in biology.  Both of my supervisors have been mid-career researchers with great reputations and no longer worry about their annual publication count, so that could have something to do with why I wasn't treated in the manner you have described.  Read this below:

 

The ICMJE now recommends that authorship be based on the following four criteria:

(1) substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; and

(2) drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and

(3) final approval of the version to be published; and

(4) agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work thereby ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. All those designated as authors of a manuscript submitted to ICMJE member journals should meet all four criteria.

 

Just because I am in someone's lab and they are paying for supplies and salary doesn't mean they are entitled to be an author on a side project that they played no part in.  I consider it unethical to stamp names on a publication just because someone is your supervisor, got you a cup of coffee, etc.  

 

Large collaborative papers are becoming increasingly common, and N. American journals and granting agencies are now starting to become more critical about the criteria for why someone is considered an author.  In Europe and Asia it is still more hierarchical and their funding situation is different, hence the long list of names on many of the papers.  But things are changing here.

 

I find it surprising, even disturbing, that students are first authors on papers that they didn't actually write the draft for and simply collected and analyzed data and made "revisions".  I'm sure such revisions were trepidatious and if the supervisor doesn't agree with them there is no discussion.  Supervisors who have this mentality are doing a great disservice to their students and should realize that their students' needs and goals should be more important than their annual report.

 

I guess they will be the next army of publication mill commadants.  Or maybe they will simply not be able to enter academia, because they haven't learned to be independent and confident researchers and disseminators. 

[fuzzylogician]

Just because I am in someone's lab and they are paying for supplies and salary doesn't mean they are entitled to be an author on a side project that they played no part in.  I consider it unethical to stamp names on a publication just because someone is your supervisor, got you a cup of coffee, etc.  

 

...

 

I find it surprising, even disturbing, that students are first authors on papers that they didn't actually write the draft for and simply collected and analyzed data and made "revisions".  I'm sure such revisions were trepidatious and if the supervisor doesn't agree with them there is no discussion.  Supervisors who have this mentality are doing a great disservice to their students and should realize that their students' needs and goals should be more important than their annual report.

 

...

 

You're using very harsh language to criticize what is common practice in some fields, as if your field's way of doing things is somehow inherently better for some reason. Obtaining funding is a major role of the PI in some fields and in order for them to show the return on that money, they get to be last authors on all papers resulting from that money. It's how they guarantee continued funding to run their lab and pay your salary. It's also how higher admin people in the university track the money and productivity of labs. 

 

As for who does the editing of papers, you again see that there are norms in different fields and they make sense for those fields. 

 

Personally, I work on the interface between two fields, with very different conventions. For the same contribution, in one field a professor will be a co-author on my paper (even if I designed all of my own experiments, ran them myself, analyzed the results and wrote the whole paper) and in the other they will not. That mostly reflects the different funding structures of the fields. It's something I constantly worry about because people who are as hard-headed as you might be reading my CV and job applications and refusing to understand that conventions are field-specific and nothing is a hard-and-fast Truth. 

[TakeruK]

I agree with fuzzy -- I don't think large author lists are necessarily wrong! Things are different in each field but fortunately, if you are someone who is in a position to judge publication lists of others in your field, then you are probably well experienced in the idiosyncrasies of your field! 

 

Many journals in my field are starting to require authors to make statements stating which author contributed what. I think this is a good thing if the intention of this disclosure is simply disclosure and not to allow the journal editors to decide who is or isn't allowed to be listed as a coauthor. The disclosure helps someone outside of the field understand how authorship works in that field. It's especially useful in very general scientific publications, such as Science or Nature, which are read by people in all fields. However, with the growing number of people in cross-disciplinary research, I think it would be great if all major journals in a field would adopt policies like this. 

[snowshoes]

You're using very harsh language to criticize what is common practice in some fields, as if your field's way of doing things is somehow inherently better for some reason. 

 

My experiences and opinions don't necessarily reflect my field.  They are my own experiences and opinions.

 

I use harsh language because I don't believe in going along with the status quo if I think it is fundamentally wrong.  I don't understand how anyone could justify being first author on a paper they didn't write.  What would happen if your PI/author made an error or unethical judgement and the editors and peers looked to you for answers/blame?  

 

 

Not all grad students kowtow to their superior's whims or what they are told the field is "really like".  If you want to make positive changes you have to be brave, not go with the flow and, in 15 years, simply pass on this passive nature to the new generation of scientists.

 

Things like the open access movement and breaking down of old school hierarchical ways in science wouldn't be happening if we all defended the status quo.  We are educated people; we are literally trained to question things, not accept them at face value.

[Eigen]

In my experience, as a graduate student, you have the option of taking your name off the paper if you don't agree with it. I have friends who have done that. 

 

You don't, however, have any real say in whether the PI publishes the work or not. 

 

I think it's a bad jump to make from "pays for the lab, my salary, and all the supplies to this work" to "bought me a cup of coffee". 

 

In the first case, this work would not have been done without the PI. There would have been no lab, no supplies, and no pay for said work. Similarly, they are paying you for the work you did, even if it was a side project. In industry, that would imply ownership of the ideas. Technically, most Universities would look at it similarly- that's why you are required to include the university affiliation as well as funding acknowledgement. 

 

I would consider it highly unethical to take someones money, use their equipment and supplies, and the general knowledge gained from working on similar projects, and not include them as last author on the paper. That's the whole point of the last author convention. They did indeed play a large roll in the project- they funded it, in full. 

 

Also, the criteria you listed would be perfectly fine for a PI to write up a grad students work, and let them help with revisions. Then the PI and the student would both hold perfectly valid authorships. 

 

Also, am I correct to assume that you are in Canada? There are many conventional differences between CA and the US, and this may well be one of them. 

[fuzzylogician]

snowshoes: No offense, but words are cheap. 

 

The OP asks, is this common, You answered: "This is NOT a standard practice, in fact, this is very, very odd" and so on. Well, it is common in some fields, regardless of how you might feel about it. Furthermore, although you refuse to accept it, there are good reasons for why things happen differently in different fields. I think you are either misunderstanding how things happen or you are exaggerating for effect. If you submit a manuscript with an error, whether you wrote the text or your advisor wrote the text, you are accountable for the error. If your advisor (or any co-author, for that matter) is submitting a manuscript that says things you disagree with, you need to get it fixed or have your name removed before submission. If you are in a field where the convention is that the PI writes the paper, why would anyone look to you for "blame" (and by the way, that's a strange choice of words)? The point of having the PI as last author on the paper is precisely that they are responsible for everything that comes of their lab. You may pursue a project that warrants first authorship, but it is done under the guidance of the PI and as part of the larger endeavors of their lab and using their funding and equipment. 

 

 

I think it's a bad jump to make from "pays for the lab, my salary, and all the supplies to this work" to "bought me a cup of coffee".  

 

 

This. I find that students often tend to underestimate the importance of obtaining funding and keeping a lab. At least until they get over to the other side. 

[St Andrews Lynx]

My experiences and opinions don't necessarily reflect my field.  They are my own experiences and opinions.

 

I use harsh language because I don't believe in going along with the status quo if I think it is fundamentally wrong.  I don't understand how anyone could justify being first author on a paper they didn't write.  What would happen if your PI/author made an error or unethical judgement and the editors and peers looked to you for answers/blame?  

I think if you want to take a stand against the hierarchy/status quo like this...you probably shouldn't be in academia. 'Cause the whole thing is built upon a rigid, pre-defined hierarchy. In the sciences, the PI is the boss. In the majority of physical sciences, the PI has their name amongst the authors as convention. 

 

The error & unethical judgement thing I don't believe is that big an issue in the physical sciences - in most scientific fields it's all about reporting new reactions or syntheses, not making controversial statements. If a paper has serious errors in it, then the peer reviewers just reject it. The feedback on the rejected manuscript goes back to the corresponding author, who is nearly always the PI. No one other than the corresponding author will get questioned on the manuscript/article, worrying that the first author might get "blamed" isn't really an issue.