Fifth+ author publication?

[treejuice1]

My lab is submitting a couple papers soon and have added my name as a 5th-7th author kind of as a thanks for my dedication around the lab, even though I didn't actually directly contribute any data to the papers. I've done a lot of menial work here (think office work, organizing freezers, etc.) and I've been trained in things like IHC but they've never needed me to do it since training me. Would it be dishonest to claim that I have done "research?"

[UTPEOPLE]

My lab is submitting a couple papers soon and have added my name as a 5th-7th author kind of as a thanks for my dedication around the lab, even though I didn't actually directly contribute any data to the papers. I've done a lot of menial work here (think office work, organizing freezers, etc.) and I've been trained in things like IHC but they've never needed me to do it since training me. Would it be dishonest to claim that I have done "research?"

 

So you never did a laboratory procedure? Of any sort? Were you a summer student affliated with the lab or did you just drop in from time to time?

[treejuice1]

This is my second summer as a summer student here and I've been trained/been shown lots of laboratory procedures, but there's never been a need for me to do them... My PI told me I'd be able to do more this summer, but that hasn't really happened because everyone is so busy. I realize now that my PI really likes the idea of mentoring undergrads and having a really full lab to foster interest in science but is actually far too busy to pay any attention to us.

[Brainz]

That's a tough one. One idea is to maybe apply for a summer NSERC which brings money to the table. That could get his attention, plus a first/second author publication. Or if there's no chance he'll take a more one-on-one approach, might be best to move on to get a little more attention/focus - more one-on-one and guidance from a prof that is less busy.

 

I have 2 fourth author pieces. I actually did contribute to the writing in both of them. In one of them I did most of the data collection/stats. Trying to work on my own project so that I can show that I've actually done my own thing.

[UTPEOPLE]

This is my second summer as a summer student here and I've been trained/been shown lots of laboratory procedures, but there's never been a need for me to do them... My PI told me I'd be able to do more this summer, but that hasn't really happened because everyone is so busy. I realize now that my PI really likes the idea of mentoring undergrads and having a really full lab to foster interest in science but is actually far too busy to pay any attention to us.

 

what exactly is your lab specialized in? usually the masters students/ phd students are more than happy enough to give you a small part of their project so that their workload is lessened... Have you gone up to one of them and just said... I can take care of these needed set of western blots for you?

[bloh]

Many reputable journals will have a section detailing the contributions of each author. In my opinion, such a question on a panel interview is perfectly appropriate.

 

A lot of projects will take years to gather enough data to be able to publish a solid story. In this case, your work may not have directly been included in the publication but your previous experiments/work/effort did contribute to the overall story and in that case I think its perfectly reasonable to claim credit for part of the paper.

 

However, in your case, it seems like you do not fall into that category. Yes, it would be dishonest to claim you did the research in your case.

[PCC]

You must have done SOMETHING for the project. They wouldn't include you in a paper as grace.

[bloh]

You must have done SOMETHING for the project. They wouldn't include you in a paper as grace.

 

As a matter of fact, this is quite common. It all depends on the lab and how you got the job.

[PCC]

As a matter of fact, this is quite common. It all depends on the lab and how you got the job.

 

Sure, but usually, you contribute in some way, even if indirectly.

 

eg. you edited and formatted the figures, or were part of that one control experiment they had to add etc.

[bloh]

Sure, but usually, you contribute in some way, even if indirectly.

 

eg. you edited and formatted the figures, or were part of that one control experiment they had to add etc.

 

That isn't what I'm talking about. Yes, such a contribution should be credited in the form of authorship. After all, you did the experiment for that figure!

 

I am talking about putting students on papers for merely washing dishes, preparing media, buffers, learning how to do procedures, 'organizing freezers' and such. That should under no circumstance be rewarded in the form of authorship, in my opinion.

 

 

p.s. I can't imagine any post-doc, PI or graduate student trusting a student to know how to design and format a figure well that's appropriate for the journal that the paper is being submitted to. One could teach someone, but it's usually just easier and less time-intensive to freaking do it themselves.

[dr_horrible]

I agree! I know quite a few supervisors who will stick students and volunteers in their labs on a paper for "menial" work they have done to contribute (reagent making, cleaning, etc.) Gives them a change to feel included, encourages team spirit in the lab, blah blah. I think it's a perfectly okay thing to do. It's not like they are first author and claiming to have completely written the paper and performed all the work.

 

Maybe I'm just biased because I work as a lab tech right now, and will have gotten a few 3rd-5th author pubs out of it by the time I'm done in August. I rarely contributed writing/figures to the papers, but did some of the experimental work.

 

That isn't what I'm talking about. Yes, such a contribution should be credited in the form of authorship. After all, you did the experiment for that figure!

 

I am talking about putting students on papers for merely washing dishes, preparing media, buffers, learning how to do procedures, 'organizing freezers' and such. That should under no circumstance be rewarded in the form of authorship, in my opinion.

 

 

p.s. I can't imagine any post-doc, PI or graduate student trusting a student to know how to design and format a figure well that's appropriate for the journal that the paper is being submitted to. One could teach someone, but it's usually just easier and less time-intensive to freaking do it themselves.

[treejuice1]

Thanks for the replies everyone. The only thing I can think of is that I was an assistant to the previous PhD student whose project this was (he abandoned his degree halfway through) and helped him with his experiments last summer, but I think those experiments failed to generate any usable data

 

It isn't my intention to misrepresent myself in my application. If it reflects poorly on me that my name was included without contributing data, then perhaps it'd be best not to mention it at all. My time here has been an invaluably positive experience nonetheless and there is still plenty I can talk about

[KennethToronto]

I agree! I know quite a few supervisors who will stick students and volunteers in their labs on a paper for "menial" work they have done to contribute (reagent making, cleaning, etc.) Gives them a change to feel included, encourages team spirit in the lab, blah blah. I think it's a perfectly okay thing to do. It's not like they are first author and claiming to have completely written the paper and performed all the work.

 

Maybe I'm just biased because I work as a lab tech right now, and will have gotten a few 3rd-5th author pubs out of it by the time I'm done in August. I rarely contributed writing/figures to the papers, but did some of the experimental work.

 

Sticking random people onto the paper also goes against most submission guidelines...but I guess no one cares about those.

[astrogirl]

I would say put it on your application and don't even worry. You were a member of the lab, even if you didn't do anything super flashy, and if you can understand and discuss the research in the paper then you're good.

 

Far sketchier authorship-related things happen in academia all the time, like people forming large consortiums and putting everyone in the consortium on every paper someone in the group writes so they end up with 100+ authors, most of whom haven't even looked at the paper.

[PermanentWaves]

p.s. I can't imagine any post-doc, PI or graduate student trusting a student to know how to design and format a figure well that's appropriate for the journal that the paper is being submitted to. One could teach someone, but it's usually just easier and less time-intensive to freaking do it themselves.

 

Absolutely. To be honest, in most labs, the OP would have been lucky to get into the acknowledgments. I can't imagine the first author would be too pleased with it. The more authors you add, the less work it looks like the first author did. Not every journal has a section indicating who did what. I know of a lab near ours that had a paper accepted with 13 authors, while the first author did 95% of the published work. The other authors had contributed reagents (come on...) or had tried some of the work previously and had it fail (in which case the first author had to re-do it anyway).

 

OP: I would mention the paper in your app. It doesn't hurt, and I wouldn't worry about it much. It's unlikely an interviewer will ask you for exactly your role in the paper (especially if you're 7th author). You could be asked though about the pertinent research in the paper.

[dr_horrible]

I wouldn't say they are random if they helped with the experimental work. Even making gels, making reagents, setting up experiments but not preforming the actual assay, is necessary work to get the paper done. If a summer student does that, and the supervisor is generous and wants to include them, I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

And under the guidelines that specify that you should report what each author did, you can always write something like "helped with X and Y experiments".

 

Sticking random people onto the paper also goes against most submission guidelines...but I guess no one cares about those.

[bloh]

I wouldn't say they are random if they helped with the experimental work. Even making gels, making reagents, setting up experiments but not preforming the actual assay, is necessary work to get the paper done. If a summer student does that, and the supervisor is generous and wants to include them, I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

And under the guidelines that specify that you should report what each author did, you can always write something like "helped with X and Y experiments".

 

No, there definitely is something wrong with it. By your accord, should the secretary - who ordered all those reagents and chemicals - be included on the paper?

 

No scientist should ever need help "running a gel", especially from an undergraduate student. The first author on the paper should be absolutely insulted if such a thing was mentioned in the acknowledgments. The middle authors should be reserved for people that helped in meaningful ways.

 

For example, someone in the laboratory may be an expert in doing cDNA preps and real-time PCR and so the first author sought his/her help to strengthen their paper. This experiment would perhaps make up a single figure in a paper 4-6+ figures.

 

I truly hope the admission committees start seeing through such bull****.

 

 

To the OP. Feel free to put the publication down in your sketch but if you embellish your story, then you are definitely being dishonest. Be upfront about your contribution and I'm sure it'll get you brownie points at the interview.

[dr_horrible]

I don't think I said someone who ordered reagents should be added, and I've never seen that happen, nor do I think it should. But someone who helps to consistently set up experiments, and make reagents and such necessary for them if the grad student doesn't have time, is doing quite a bit of work.

 

If someone ran a single gel in a big line of experiments, there is no reason to include them. But if someone other than the first author did a large portion, or even the majority of the necessary lab work, that is a different story, in my opinion. That is all I was trying to say, even though I may have not be clear enough.

 

I know a lot of supervisors have differing views on this, but I don't think that adding someone who might not have helped in writing, or contributed nearly as much as a first author, but helped with a lot of work regardless, is a bad thing.

 

And even if someone was added on as a fifth author just for kicks, I feel like an ad-com might be a little suspicious if the person put it on their sketch, or spoke of it in an interview, and claimed to have done most of the work. They would probably wonder why he wasn't first or second author, in this case.

 

 

No, there definitely is something wrong with it. By your accord, should the secretary - who ordered all those reagents and chemicals - be included on the paper?

 

No scientist should ever need help "running a gel", especially from an undergraduate student. The first author on the paper should be absolutely insulted if such a thing was mentioned in the acknowledgments. The middle authors should be reserved for people that helped in meaningful ways.

 

For example, someone in the laboratory may be an expert in doing cDNA preps and real-time PCR and so the first author sought his/her help to strengthen their paper. This experiment would perhaps make up a single figure in a paper 4-6+ figures.

 

I truly hope the admission committees start seeing through such bull****.

 

 

To the OP. Feel free to put the publication down in your sketch but if you embellish your story, then you are definitely being dishonest. Be upfront about your contribution and I'm sure it'll get you brownie points at the interview.

[NewfieMike]

yeah this is a pretty touchy issue. It happens a LOT. I know 2 labs that work next door to each other and do similar research. Whenever one of the labs publishes something, names from the other lab goes on the paper and vice versa. All of a sudden it appears that these 2 PI's are more productive than everyone else, yet no more work is actually done.

 

I am strongly against giving people authorship for doing trivial things (such as the case with the OP), but hey, you got what you wanted so all the power to you!

[Brainz]

^ yeah I mean it's not exactly strategic either. In some journals where you have more space, you can typically list up to 4-6 authors before adding et al. so generally after the 6th author, you technically get cut off anyways. In the ref's, in the paper itself (if more than 6 authors, can use et al. in the first mention).

 

i've personally never come across this, but it probably happens a lot.

[Leon]

If a significant amount of work has been done for the actual experiments themselves, then some mention may be credited. But, IMO, authorship shouldn't be awarded for general lab maintenance work.

 

In my lab, we have about 15 undergrads involved in maintaining the lab, and keeping the specimen alive. The grad students work with what we maintain, but we don't get mentioned in the papers (naturally). But, sometimes one or two students volunteer and carry out a significant amount of work (such as multiple 8 hour mating trials or other related experimental work) and the time commitment is usually quite high. In that case, I think authorship is deserved.

 

If labs continue to easily had out authorships, it's going to result in long term dilution of the importance of authorships.

 

To answer the OP, I would list it as publication, since it technically is a research publication, but would include a description of what you actually did if space is provided so it's not unintentionally misleading.

[lostintime]

Haha lab politics, how wonderful. Sometimes makes me want to avoid research all together, but then again, there's politics in all aspects of life right. What can you do.

[Starling]

I'd go ahead and include it; just be honest about your contributions. Every lab has different guidelines about what constitutes authorship, and people will always disagree about it.

[treejuice1]

Thanks everyone, I will mention it but I will make sure to clarify the responsibilities that I had. Although in my defence, I never asked for authorship or even ever considered/dreamt of it. The first author actually just came up to me and told me that he had my name included because he felt that I deserved it, so it came as a complete surprise. Hopefully my next lab placement will allow me to complete more meaningful work

[Genemo]

Thanks everyone, I will mention it but I will make sure to clarify the responsibilities that I had. Although in my defence, I never asked for authorship or even ever considered/dreamt of it. The first author actually just came up to me and told me that he had my name included because he felt that I deserved it, so it came as a complete surprise. Hopefully my next lab placement will allow me to complete more meaningful work

 

there has been discussion about authorship, but as long as your supervisor and the 1st author thinks you deserve it, then you should be proud of it and dont feel anything bad.