Print This PostPublications are the academic currency. As early career researchers (ECRs) a good publication record is crucial for securing your next academic job and starting your independent research career. And as a principal investigator (PI), publications ensure the lab can stay operational, attract good researchers, and keep the monies – funding – coming in. As an ECR, I have often felt authorship to be a difficult subject to discuss openly. Understanding what type of contributions would warrant a spot on the coveted author list isn’t always straightforward and most importantly negotiating where your spot should be, can be challenging and at times political. In this blog, I want to discuss what I came to understand constitutes authorship and my best advise on how to tackle those awkward conversations about authorship – which in truth shouldn’t be awkward in the first place.
Firstly, let’s break down what authorship is and how this is tied to author order on a manuscript. I will caveat this by saying that conventions of assigning authorship may vary by research field and internationally. Taking my field, neuroscience, as an example, the first author on a manuscript is the person to have made the most significant contributions to the research. Both in a practical sense i.e., doing the experiments and analysing the data – but also has had the most impactful intellectual contributions i.e., writing the majority of the manuscript and thinking about what the data means. Recently, as papers amass more and more figures and techniques, joint or even triple first authors are becoming more and more common. This is to recognise that all those authors have contributed equally to the work presented in that paper.
The next important name on the author lists is last author – I know, not entirely intuitive. This name is generally the lead PI i.e., the person that has conceptualised the study, supervised, financed, and has overall responsibility of the project. Again, as science becomes more and more interdisciplinary, the emergence of joint last authors is also on the rise.
Co-authors, i.e., the names that follow the first or join first authors are reserved for all the other researchers that have contributed to the work presented in the paper. The order is generally assigned by the relative significance of their contribution. This can be quite the grey area – originality, time and quantity of contributions can be and should be considered. If all co-authors have contributed equally, then each would appear in alphabetical order. Usually, co-authorship order is assessed by the PI but open conversations between co-authors should also take place.
It’s also important to recognise what constitutes a co-authorship vs an acknowledgement. And personally, I find this to be the biggest grey area and very much lab dependent. Acknowledgments are normally at the end of the manuscript just before the reference list and do span across several domains. In some cases, collecting data could be classed as a co-author contribution in one lab and an acknowledgement in another. Sharing of ideas and discussing results or implications with a colleague could be recognised as a co-authorship an acknowledgement or no mention at all!
And last but not least, the corresponding author or authors. Primarily thought as an administrative title back in the day, this position is shifting to be more important – recognising that a corresponding author can do much more than sending data files. This title is reserved for an individual or individuals who know most about the paper and can thus discuss its implications, methods, and findings in the most detail. Whoever is named corresponding author will also assume responsibility for any future discussion about the project once the paper is published. When I first started in science, corresponding author was synonymous with PI, but now it is more common to see first authors as named corresponding authors, which are generally ECRs. I think, this is an important step for recognising another type of contribution to the work and a mark of visibility and continuity for ECRs, in an environment which is plagued by short term contracts.
And as I mentioned, there are no clear and fast rules about what authorship really entails, and each individual will have their own opinions, making authorship disputes not uncommon in research. But, under no circumstance should you be afraid to raise any authorship issues by worrying about repercussions or collaborators reactions. It’s more than right to seek recognition and credit for something you have worked hard on. And with that in mind, these are my top tips to make sure your name is on that paper and in the right place in the authorship order:
Communication is key.
Have conversations about authorship early and be transparent. Spelling this out early, before all the data and analysis has been generated, figures put together, and manuscript drafted will ensure everyone is on the same page. It’s important to have a conversation about everyone’s understanding of what it means to see a name on a manuscript. Make sure you are clear in what contributions you are willing and going to make, and this of course will be different as a first author or as a co-author. If you can, lay out contributions, roles, and authorship in writing. A quick email circulated to your collaborators to reaffirm what was discussed will do the trick and may offer a needed reference point if disagreements do arise further down the line.
Continue having authorship conversations throughout the cycle of the project. Yes, science very rarely behaves in the way you thought it would. Experiments change, the focus could very well change too, so it’s important to keep revising contributions and thus authorship. If during the project you feel like your contributions have changed compared to when you first set them out, raise this with your co-authors as early as possible.
And what happens when there are disagreements about authorship? My best advice here is to sleep on it first – like in any conflict, it’s best to avoid a knee-jerk reaction.
Firstly, reflect on your contributions. Are you assigning more importance to your role? Even unintentionally? This is where an outsider perspective could be incredibly beneficial. Speak to your PI or another researcher about the situation and take their advice on board.
If you feel unfair attribution of authorship has taken place, finding an arbiter to mediate a solution could be one option. And again, communication will be key. Involve all authors in these discussions and put across your arguments as neutrally as possible, be considerate of others, so as to resolve the matter amicably without fracturing the professional relationship.
You can also contact the editorial office of the prospective journal or the research ethics officer within your institution, who will be able to advise you if initial talks do not resolve the matter.
And if a disagreement isn’t resolved quite so amicably, it’s an important lesson on choosing who to work with in future. Working together requires trust and collaboration. Surround yourself with individuals that prioritise teamwork and who fairly value each other’s contributions, be it PI or co-author.
Dr Gaia Brezzo
Author
Dr Gaia Brezzo is a Research Fellow based within the UK Dementia Research Institute at The University of Edinburgh. Gaia’s research focuses on understanding how immune alterations triggered by stroke shape chronic maladaptive neuroimmune responses that lead to post-stroke cognitive decline and vascular dementia. Raised in Italy, Gaia came to the UK to complete her undergraduate degree, and thankfully, stuck around. Gaia writes about her work and career challenges, when not biking her way up and down hills in Edinburgh.
Adam Smith
Dementia Researcher
Dr Emma Law
Dr Yvonne Couch
Dr Jodi Watt