To all the new Ph.D. students out there, co-authorship is a sensitive issue in Academia. Try your best to have a clear understanding of your role in a project. Here are some tips to navigate potential mishaps & avoid hurt/pain down the line. #academicchatter @PhDVoice
1/n Try to figure out if you are “helping like a good lab mate, learning as a young trainee/newbie” or “working as a partner/collaborator” on the project. Usually, the latter gets you a co-authorship, but it can depend a lot on individual circumstances.
2/n If you can, talk to your Adviser/PI about navigating these issues and what the expectations are for getting co-authorship in their lab. They want the lab to run smoothly, want group members to get along, and should be happy to have a conversation about this.
3/n If you are working with a group member or someone outside the research group, try to have a conversation about co-authorship and delineate roles/responsibilities as much as possible. Again, your PI can help you here.
4/n part 1: Especially in your first year, try to balance your research time between learning from others and devoting time to your own project. You may want to learn the new tools and specific research skillsets of your new lab by observing/working on other people’s projects.
4/n part 2: But if “all your research time” is spent working on other people’s projects to result in no credit for you at the end, ask yourself if ultimately that is what you want or were hoping for (sometimes it is!).
5/n Having a short conversation (10-15 mins even!) about all of this before starting on a project is so much better than working for several months or years in the project and your contributions being labeled “insignificant or not worthy of a co-authorship” at the end.
6/n If you ever run into issues, try to find a mediator (your PI again can be your best guide ) to resolve the conflicts. Remember that co-authorship is not just about a name in the paper. It is about fair credit and respect to one’s time and efforts for working on that project.
7/n Talking about these things can be difficult and awkward. But doing so can build a lot of trust in your collaborations within or outside your research lab.
8/n If you ask for help from someone else to work on your project, respect their time and expertise. Reward them appropriately (even if they are undergraduate students) and if they have “contributed” to the project. Again, you need to figure out how your lab handles this.
9/n Know that there are already rules, expectations, and research ethics in place at universities, journals where you publish, and the funding agencies supporting your research about documenting contributions and giving co-authorship. Of course, compliance can vary!
10/n There are also field-specific conventions about co-authorship. In some, authors are listed alphabetically. In some, advisers are listed at the end with the primary adviser at the very end. So, check with your PI what usually are the expectations or conventions.
11/n Sometimes, you may be forced to “add people” for a variety of reasons. You will want to handle this delicately. Read more here: lareviewofbooks.org/article/fraud-…
12/n Sometimes, having many authors is the norm in a few fields or large collaborative projects. See this @nature piece: nature.com/articles/d4158…
13/n Working with people and having them as co-authors can be enjoyable and fun. Read this @nature piece: nature.com/articles/d4158…
14/n Here are some useful tips: blogs.nature.com/naturejobs/201… and publicationethics.org/files/2003pdf1…
15/n If you are interested in authorship mediation and arbitration, read this article: …rchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.11…
16/n If you are working in a large collaborative project bringing different skill sets to the table, it may be challenging to define the “order” of authorship. Read more here: nature.com/articles/nj741…
17/n part 1: Many things in Academia are dependent on having papers (getting jobs, promotions, fellowships, grants). You need to have a very pragmatic view of this. Many people will give differing opinions or may rightly point out some of the challenges with this system, but
17/n part 2: as a young researcher, know what is critical for your career growth and what criteria will be used to judge/evaluate you.
@AcademicChatter let’s blow this up!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
