"These authors contributed equally"

[youdontknowme1215]

hey guys, 

 

How did you approach published works which have you listed as the author with the * indicating "these authors contributed equally"? If the legend is written as "Co-author 1*, Co-author 2*, Co-author 3*, Co-author 4*, authors 5-13". Would you say that authors 1-4 are co-first authors? How did you incorporate this in your resume and discuss it during interviews? 

 

Best

[fuzzylogician]

I have such papers but it's always just me and one other author (alphabetically before me) so that's pretty easy to handle. In my field alphabetical order doesn't really require more explanation, it's assumed that everyone contributed equally unless specified otherwise (caveat: on non-experimental papers; experimental papers are a whole other can of worms). I know some people who add a * next to the names of co-first authors and put at the bottom of the publication list on their CV text to the effect that "* = equal contribution" or "* = shared first authorship" or such like. My papers themselves say "authors contributed equally," usually also "mistakes are each other's," which is a running joke I have with one particular co-author who I have several papers with. I discuss these papers in research statements and the like as first-authored contributions, because that's exactly what they are, and to my knowledge, my letters of recommendation say the same. I also don't hesitate to discuss them in interviews and to submit them as writing samples (though I always make sure to also submit at least one non-co-authored publication). I guess I'm not sure what the question is. If I contributed equally and am considered a first author on the paper, why wouldn't I discuss it in statements and interviews?

[TakeruK]

In my field, co-first authorships are not as common, but what fuzzy said would apply in such cases. Treat them as first author publications in places where you need to list/count first author publications and I would refer to them as "co-first-author" in interviews or SOPs.

[youdontknowme1215]

thanks for the feedback! : )

 

[Eigen]

I've never seen, and would probably expect some skepticism with 4 co-first authors, but I have several that I've got with one other person and our litany of undergrads/advisor that I think are pretty solid. 

The importance, since there is some skepticism around co-authored papers, is in my mind being able to have really defined roles. Most of mine have come out of collaborations- someone else makes something, I test it's efficacy in cells. I do modeling, someone else does an experimental component. 

It makes it a very straightforward split of "who did what" that can make it a lot easier to explain on interviews/your CV if you have to.

[mop]

If you are citing in a resume/CV it is common to use asterisks or underlines or something to mark equal authors in the author list.

[Eigen]

I use double dagger or asterisk, followed by an indented line with the "these authors contributed equally" footnote. Or whatever the exact attribution is from the paper, some journals phrase it a bit differently. I also always bold my own name so it's easy to see as people read through it.

So, for example:

Eigen, G. *; Mop *; Takeru, K. How to Cite Papers, 2015. 

*These authors contributed equally to this work.