Order of authors for review

[Shirafune]

I graduated from college this past spring and have been hired by one of my PIs during UG to work full time. He has been very supportive as I have been applying to medical school.

I haven't had many interview invites: 2 invites with 1 ending in a rejection. The other interview I attended is absolutely my top choice and (strongly) welcomes updates, letters of interest, and general communication.

My PI has recently invited me to write a review paper for a Nature subject journal slated for a mid-February deadline. There are currently three authors: me, my PI, and my PI's collaborator. I am not at all familiar with how authorship works/is viewed for reviews, but I would certainly like to update my top choice with this information. So a couple of questions:

(1) How rigorous is the publication process for review papers? I have been through and am still going through the review process for a first author publication, so there is at least some experience to reference.

(2) Does authorship order matter and who gets senior author in these kinds of situations? Is authorship order again determined by the amount of contributions? I will be contributing a section, but by no means a majority of the content.

(3) I am 99% sure I will be put on the paper: my PI has complimented my writing many times and, as I said, been very supportive. How would updating adcoms with this information (i.e. in the process of writing a review) be looked upon? Is it too callous for me to update them with this?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[neurobain]

I graduated from college this past spring and have been hired by one of my PIs during UG to work full time. He has been very supportive as I have been applying to medical school.

I haven't had many interview invites: 2 invites with 1 ending in a rejection. The other interview I attended is absolutely my top choice and (strongly) welcomes updates, letters of interest, and general communication.

My PI has recently invited me to write a review paper for a Nature subject journal slated for a mid-February deadline. There are currently three authors: me, my PI, and my PI's collaborator. I am not at all familiar with how authorship works/is viewed for reviews, but I would certainly like to update my top choice with this information. So a couple of questions:

(1) How rigorous is the publication process for review papers? I have been through and am still going through the review process for a first author publication, so there is at least some experience to reference.

(2) Does authorship order matter and who gets senior author in these kinds of situations? Is authorship order again determined by the amount of contributions? I will be contributing a section, but by no means a majority of the content.

(3) I am 99% sure I will be put on the paper: my PI has complimented my writing many times and, as I said, been very supportive. How would updating adcoms with this information (i.e. in the process of writing a review) be looked upon? Is it too callous for me to update them with this?

I cannot comment on point 1, as I have not yet written a review paper but if you are submitting to Nature, I am sure it will be rigorous.

Authorship order does matter. The primary author (i.e. who wrote the paper) is listed first, followed by collaborators, and the PI is listed last as the senior author.

If you write it, you should ethically be on it. If you help but aren't the primary writer, again, ethically you should be on the paper.

Hope that helps!

 

[IslandStyle808]

I graduated from college this past spring and have been hired by one of my PIs during UG to work full time. He has been very supportive as I have been applying to medical school.

I haven't had many interview invites: 2 invites with 1 ending in a rejection. The other interview I attended is absolutely my top choice and (strongly) welcomes updates, letters of interest, and general communication.

My PI has recently invited me to write a review paper for a Nature subject journal slated for a mid-February deadline. There are currently three authors: me, my PI, and my PI's collaborator. I am not at all familiar with how authorship works/is viewed for reviews, but I would certainly like to update my top choice with this information. So a couple of questions:

(1) How rigorous is the publication process for review papers? I have been through and am still going through the review process for a first author publication, so there is at least some experience to reference.

(2) Does authorship order matter and who gets senior author in these kinds of situations? Is authorship order again determined by the amount of contributions? I will be contributing a section, but by no means a majority of the content.

(3) I am 99% sure I will be put on the paper: my PI has complimented my writing many times and, as I said, been very supportive. How would updating adcoms with this information (i.e. in the process of writing a review) be looked upon? Is it too callous for me to update them with this?

I may actually be able to help. In fact my situation is almost exactly the same as your (first author of review article).

1) It can be brutal depending on who is reviewing the article. For the first journal my lab sent it too, there were 5 that reviewed my article. Then there were a whole bunch of comments, which ranged from reasonable to ridiculous. So we tried for another journal, and it was reviewed by 2 people with much more reasonable comments. Unfortunately, there is a ton of bias in the peer review process and sometimes it works in your favor and sometimes it doesn't.

2) Yes, authorship is determined by how much each contributed intellectually. The person with the majority of the contribution should go first. Then second author will be by the person who contributed the next greatest amount. The last author will be your PI.

3) In my second application cycle to DO schools, I put on my application that the review was pending. In my third, I put it was complete. Don't fudge what is really going on. Just put down at what stage of the publication process you are in.

 

[Shirafune]

I may actually be able to help. In fact my situation is almost exactly the same as your (first author of review article).

1) It can be brutal depending on who is reviewing the article. For the first journal my lab sent it too, there were 5 that reviewed my article. Then there were a whole bunch of comments, which ranged from reasonable to ridiculous. So we tried for another journal, and it was reviewed by 2 people with much more reasonable comments. Unfortunately, there is a ton of bias in the peer review process and sometimes it works in your favor and sometimes it doesn't.

2) Yes, authorship is determined by how much each contributed intellectually. The person with the majority of the contribution should go first. Then second author will be by the person who contributed the next greatest amount. The last author will be your PI.

3) In my second application cycle to DO schools, I put on my application that the review was pending. In my third, I put it was complete. Don't fudge what is really going on. Just put down at what stage of the publication process you are in.

I cannot comment on point 1, as I have not yet written a review paper but if you are submitting to Nature, I am sure it will be rigorous.

Authorship order does matter. The primary author (i.e. who wrote the paper) is listed first, followed by collaborators, and the PI is listed last as the senior author.

If you write it, you should ethically be on it. If you help but aren't the primary writer, again, ethically you should be on the paper.

Hope that helps!

Thanks for the input! I didn't realize that the review process for a review paper could be so drawn out as well. I figured it would be faster because, well, presumably experts have already written the paper.

Do you think the review process would be less strenuous, given that we were pre-approved for the review by the journal and that the senior author is pretty well-known in the field?

 

[IslandStyle808]

Thanks for the input! I didn't realize that the review process for a review paper could be so drawn out as well. I figured it would be faster because, well, presumably experts have already written the paper.

Do you think the review process would be less strenuous, given that we were pre-approved for the review by the journal and that the senior author is pretty well-known in the field?

You know what the big irony of the peer review process is? Guess who is reading your manuscript... your PIs competition! It will still most likely be the same rigor whether he is well know or not.

In comparison to the whole process of an actual lab project, a review article is a far easier endeavor (no money, no labor, and no IRB approval). However, the approval process can take just as long as a regular project, minus the extra lab work to be added to the paper.

Don't worry, if done everything right, it will get accepted somewhere. Good luck!