Sharing first author - repeatedly

[mendel121]

Hello all - I'm an MS2 with a PhD that I finished before I started med school. I'm still doing the post-doc thing part time. I have a big project that I worked on as a doctoral student, but didn't make it into my disseration, so I've been spending the last year and a half or so getting it published. To get papers out, I've had to share the load with a PhD student that works with me. We agreed to share first authorship on a pair of papers for this work, with her taking the first-first author spot in a paper we put out last summer, and then switching for a paper we'll put out this summer.

The dillema is that before she started, I kicked off a project that is very similar to the one that she and I have been working on. I turned that one completely over to her last year. However she's not terribly interested in putting that project in her dissertation, and we've disscussed collaborating again. This would result in 4-6 papers (including the two I mentioned earlier) with us sharing first authorship and alternating who gets listed first. These projects involve massive amounts of data, and a ton of work making collaboration both helpful, but possibly problematic. It's really attractive because in this case because we work exceptionally well together, have become friends, and as an added bonus she's frickin' brilliant and makes me look really good .

Both of us are just worried about implications for our careers if we have a bunch of papers on our CVs where we split first authorships. We both sort of think that it might be a bad thing, so we're shying away from further collaborations including the one I've mentioned here.

I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on it? Thanks.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[BozoSparky]

Hmm...I don't think I would be suspicious. (I also have a PhD and am heading into M2). Actually, I think it's great you both found some synergy. What does your old advisor think?

 

[mendel121]

Hmm...I don't think I would be suspicious. (I also have a PhD and am heading into M2). Actually, I think it's great you both found some synergy. What does your old advisor think?

Actually - my dissertation advisor is my PI now - just easier to continue in the same lab while in school, I couldn't find many people willing to pay half post-doc money for a med student.

So anyway - she wants us to work together to get the work done well and fast - but she appreciates our concerns and isn't forcing the issue . . . yet.

She hasn't really weighed in on it yet, but I don't think she'd let us avoid the collaboration if she thought we were totally wrong.

The fact that we have such good synergy makes it harder - my heart tells me to continue the collaboration because it makes hard work more enjoyable, while the brain says avoid it. Maybe you're right though, and we should just go with it.

Thanks for the input.

 

[Hard24Get]

Why don't you be prinicipally responsible for one writing-wise, and she takes the other, and switch off between 1st and second author? It wouldn't really matter for you, but if that ends up being most of her PhD, people would wonder how independent she really was.

Hello all - I'm an MS2 with a PhD that I finished before I started med school. I'm still doing the post-doc thing part time. I have a big project that I worked on as a doctoral student, but didn't make it into my disseration, so I've been spending the last year and a half or so getting it published. To get papers out, I've had to share the load with a PhD student that works with me. We agreed to share first authorship on a pair of papers for this work, with her taking the first-first author spot in a paper we put out last summer, and then switching for a paper we'll put out this summer.

The dillema is that before she started, I kicked off a project that is very similar to the one that she and I have been working on. I turned that one completely over to her last year. However she's not terribly interested in putting that project in her dissertation, and we've disscussed collaborating again. This would result in 4-6 papers (including the two I mentioned earlier) with us sharing first authorship and alternating who gets listed first. These projects involve massive amounts of data, and a ton of work making collaboration both helpful, but possibly problematic. It's really attractive because in this case because we work exceptionally well together, have become friends, and as an added bonus she's frickin' brilliant and makes me look really good .

Both of us are just worried about implications for our careers if we have a bunch of papers on our CVs where we split first authorships. We both sort of think that it might be a bad thing, so we're shying away from further collaborations including the one I've mentioned here.

I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on it? Thanks.

 

[RxnMan]

I've put out a number of conference papers, and now soon will submit a journal article, all of which have been shared with my PI. We could just as easily been students, as in your situation, for all anyone knew. Similarly, my PI has several collaborators on other projects, all of which generally make it onto the by-line. Does this mean that they were all leeching off of one's ideas, or that they all weren't pulling their weight? Of course not. All it means is that they've got a great group going, and they ran with it. I've seen this done all the time (even with PhD students). You should do the same and milk this project for all it's worth.

 

[mendel121]

I've put out a number of conference papers, and now soon will submit a journal article, all of which have been shared with my PI. We could just as easily been students, as in your situation, for all anyone knew. Similarly, my PI has several collaborators on other projects, all of which generally make it onto the by-line. Does this mean that they were all leeching off of one's ideas, or that they all weren't pulling their weight? Of course not. All it means is that they've got a great group going, and they ran with it. I've seen this done all the time (even with PhD students). You should do the same and milk this project for all it's worth.

just to make sure we're talking about the same thing, you mean that you and your PI have shared first author - with the asterisk that says that you both contributed equally to the work and should both be considered first author?

I'm starting to think that you're right, that the best thing for the career is to produce the best possible papers - and if this is how its done, then well . . .

 

[RxnMan]

just to make sure we're talking about the same thing, you mean that you and your PI have shared first author - with the asterisk that says that you both contributed equally to the work and should both be considered first author?

I'm starting to think that you're right, that the best thing for the career is to produce the best possible papers - and if this is how its done, then well . . .

Didn't see this response to my post until now.

Not quite - He got 1st author and I got 2nd on one paper, then we switched on a different, related paper. Is that significantly different than what you descibe? I don't believe so. Again - you've got a good, productive team going, so I'd say keep at it and do good work until the project's run it's course. As long as both people are putting in effort and contributing, there's no problem that I can think of. The whole idea of a PhD is to build your career, and a series of pubs will do that nicely.