Criteria to include name on paper?

[Crafter]

My work's data was included in a paper, however, I was only acknowledged for technical support and was not included in the author's field.

 

This was my MS work and, I know that it was not my original idea, since I had no previous experience in molecular research at the time, so I was mostly following my mentor's guidelines and experimental design. So, at first, I thought, well, it is not my original research so that's why I am not an author, and I was OK with it.

 

However, time goes by and I know quite a few Research Technician who worked on projects that were somebody else's and not a bit of their original design or ideas and yet they are authors in the final paper because they did a lot of the experiments (like I did for my MS work).

 

So my question is: what is the criteria to include a name in the author's field? Is it an arbitrary decision of the PI? (looks like that).

 

Also, should I mention this paper in my CV? If so, how?

I am starting a PhD program this Fall and during the interview I was asked if there was a paper out with my MS work. I said it was, but then the interview changed to another topic, related to the work but not to the publication. However, I felt like I should have offered to send a copy of the paper, but I am afraid of being questioned again on why I was not in the authors because, honestly, I don't know. I asked my mentor but he never replied :S

 

[Eigen]

Did you write any of the paper?

 

Generally, it is up to the corresponding author (usually the PI) who to include. Most groups are good about discussing ahead of any project what authorship will look like.

 

You usually get authorship for being involved with the actual writing of the paper, in addition to intellectual/practical contributions.

 

You say "your works data was included", but that's a pretty amorphous statement.

[TakeruK]

Unless there is an authorship contract signed, it kind of is the arbitrary decision of the authors to decide who the coauthors are. These decisions depend on the norms of the field so this also depends a lot on field.

 

In my field, your contribution will certainly merit authorship. In general, if you contributed something that was directly used in the data analysis or discussion (whether it's collecting data, making a plot (out of your analysis), writing one subsection to provide one analysis, or performing some computation), you would be considered a coauthor. For some projects I've been on, we signed a contract indicating authorship order and inclusion (the contract stated everyone who built the (balloon bourne) telescope would be on every paper that uses the data from that flight and the lead scientist on that paper's particular analysis would be first author with everyone else in ABC order (regardless of contribution).

 

We also tend to invite** people involved in writing the telescope observing proposal to be on our author list. Big telescopes come at a cost of just under $100,000 per night, so these proposals a lot of work. Usually people who are involved in the proposal are also part of the analysis but not always--sometimes they are there because they help conceive the idea or their expertise helped make the proposal stronger (by providing yield estimates, for example). 

 

**By invite, I mean the first author will go through the whole analysis and put together a first draft of the paper. They will send it out to all proposal coauthors, even the ones that did not collect the data nor work on the analysis thus far. The invitation to join the author list usually has some clear commitment requirement (generally, to read the paper carefully and provide edits). The scientists who respond accordingly are added to the authorship and are expected to remain involved in future revisions and submissions/referee responses.

 

Overall, in our field, the general rule is that it's better to have your invitation to coauthor declined than to have someone feel slighted that they were left out. Our papers are generally 6+ authors anyways (due to the nature of observational astronomy) so at this point, adding a new author (even if they do not contribute much) does not hurt anyone very much, but getting into a fight about authorship inclusion can really hurt you, especially if the first author (the one responsible for the paper) is a graduate student, as the case generally is. Because of this, the norm in the field is that you'd expect the first author to be the one who did almost all of the work, the second author to generally be their supervisor, and the third author also contributed a significant amount. Beyond that, coauthorship meant that you were critical to some part of this paper (i.e. you still contributed something important) but you were probably not so special that the authors couldn't have found someone else to do it instead. 

 

So, it's important to find out the norms in your field before deciding what to do next!

[Crafter]

Thank you for your feedback!

Since I will start grad school again and in a PhD I am expected to publish, I just wanted to know how to address this issue. I have not done anything like that in the past (contract for a particular project, for instance) and had different experiences (mine and from others that I know personally) related to authorship and I just wanted to be clear on how to proceed and what to expect.

 

Thanks for the advice!

[Eigen]

Also worth perusing through this recent thread on the Chronicle (http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,181727.0/topicseen.html). Not in STEM, but lots of discussion of authorship and being clear about it. Some other good ones that I don't have on hand at the moment as well. 

[TakeruK]

@Crafter: Note that the contract case is probably the exception rather than the norm, and it is not something a graduate student would suggest or try to unilaterally enforce. In that particular case, it was a project with collaboration from 30+ people at a dozen different universities across 4 countries. So also keep in mind the context--it might be out of place for a contract to exist between a few people in the same lab or university (although maybe not in some instances!)

[Eigen]

Yeah, I've never heard of a contract personally.

 

But when we start writing a paper, we do sit down and figure out authorships at the start- although things have had to change for me before.

 

I've also had to go to my boss and tell him I feel I should be on a paper that I wasn't originally on, not the easiest conversation, but it went well.

[Crafter]

Another question:

That work I did for my MS that was published with my name on the acknowledgement section for "technical support", I have that listed under "research experience" in my CV, and never thought of more about it.

 

Now I wonder how to address a question like the one I got during the interview (asking if there was a paper about the research). In this case, it went well because no more details were necessary. But I wonder what could be the best way to answer to a profesor or employer about why I was not included in the author's field when it was my Master's work (but the paper is not only about that, it also covers work of other people as well, PhD students and the Research Associate of the lab). I honestly don't know what to say and I don't want to sound like I was not worth authorship (because I don't know the reasons for that -I do have my theories on why I was not included, but I don't think is proper to publish them here). Also, I don't want to offer an explanation that would make my masters mentor look bad (for instance, if I say something like "I asked him when I noticed the paper was out, a few years after I left school and never got a reply).

[fuzzylogician]

You have several avenues available to you, depending on the situation and scope of the paper, you may say anything from "I don't know" to "well, the paper makes a broad argument for X and the data from my thesis only supports a small part of that argument." I am guessing here, but you say that the paper mentions not only your work but the work of several other people; if it's more of a survey article of work that has come out of the advisor's lab, you could say that. Specifically if it's an invited contribution, that's easier to explain.

[Crafter]

You have several avenues available to you, depending on the situation and scope of the paper, you may say anything from "I don't know" to "well, the paper makes a broad argument for X and the data from my thesis only supports a small part of that argument." I am guessing here, but you say that the paper mentions not only your work but the work of several other people; if it's more of a survey article of work that has come out of the advisor's lab, you could say that. Specifically if it's an invited contribution, that's easier to explain.

Thank you!!

I think that the paper making an argument for X and the data fo my thesis only supports a small part of the argument" is about right. My findings were used as a starting point to further work and not as the main argument (well, it is sort of the main argument if you consider that the whole paper revolves around my thesis data, but it is not ABOUT my data.... (I hope I  made sense!).

[TakeruK]

I've also had to go to my boss and tell him I feel I should be on a paper that I wasn't originally on, not the easiest conversation, but it went well.

 

This is definitely important to keep in mind--ultimately, the responsibility lies on us to make sure we are credited with authorship where appropriate. It is definitely nice if you have someone looking out for you but you can't rely on that. Sometimes if there is another coauthor (maybe your supervisor or a senior graduate student) that is already on the authorship list, having them on your side can help make the conversation with the first author go smoother. 

[St Andrews Lynx]

Although a contract wouldn't be the norm in my field, having an email conversation with your PI about authorship is always a good idea because it leaves a paper trail. Your advisor can verbally agree to anything, but may change their mind, backtrack or forget they even had that conversation with you! 

 

After a face-to-face conversation about authorship, I would advise summarising the chat in an email and sending it out to all involved parties "to clarify what was discussed". 

 

As soon as your PI starts talking about "publishable data" it is acceptable to start making enquiries about expectations for authorship. "What would I need to do to be listed as an author? What would I need to do to be listed as first author?" Etc. That way you have a good idea in advance and it won't come as a surprise 6 months down the line to find out that you and your PI had differing ideas about your position on the author list.