Hi Folks

I'm coming to the end of my PhD (submission 1-2 weeks away). It looks like the best I will achieve by way of publication is 4 papers all as second author. One was a tiny bit of work I did because I'm good at a particular technique, 2 are papers of significant input (ideas and practical) but are fundamentally someone else's work. The final one is 50:50, or possibly 60:40 in my favour in terms of practical input, but my boss wants my former colleague to write it because he is in a better position than me to do so. I'm slightly peeved by this, but I'll survive and do have thesis to do/viva to mug up for.

The main question of this thread is does 2nd authorship actually count for very much? Obviously first author is great, but I don't really know after that.

Any inputs are most welcome, although my field is biosciences, so I would be especially keen to hear from anyone in that field

Cakeman

Okay my two cents worth:
As you say, being first author is like the holy grail, but being second author on "someone else's paper" is not bad at all, and while it does not scream "amazing" on a CV, it does bulk up your publication record and shows that you are competent researcher, and contribute to work of publishable standard.
About your PhD work - is there maybe some particular angle (data analysis wise) that has not been considered yet, which you could do after the PhD and then publish as first author? I understand why you are peeved at your boss for not giving you the chance to write it up as first author (I'd be annyoyed like hell), but it seems the whole rule on authorship can vary from sup to sup/discipline to discipline.. (I am not in biosciences, so dont know..)
(sprout)

I think second-author papers done during the PhD are absolutely fine. I think the perception in my field (social science discipline) is that a paper written by 2 people is more of an equal joint effort (rather than one person's paper with another guy tagged on). 3 authors or more starts to look less stellar.

Also for REF purposes you can enter a paper where you are not the first author, so to potential employers you have got 4 papers that are REF-eligible.

======= Date Modified 10 Feb 2010 19:44:47 =======
Since I am about to ask a very stupid question I won't add any imput to the original question...Though I agree with what has been said already.

Basically my query is who is the first author: is it the corresponding author, or just the first person listed? It makes sense to me that it is the corresponding author, but this isn't always the first author listed so I just wondered.

Hi Cakeman

I agree with Heifer, and I'm also in social sciences. Second author in this discipline is good, and it does look like a joint effort. It shows you can be published, and also work collaboratively.

Gennia, 1st author is the person who's name goes first, and who is usually the contact, but not always.

Hey!

In my field at least (clinical psychology), first author is the first person listed, and the person who gets the most credit. The corresponding author isn't really that relevant in terms of having credit for the work I don't think. On my PhD work, I am the first author and my supervisor second, but she is the corresponding author. There was a particular reason for her being the corresponding author but I can't remember what it was now...I think it was something to do with her having a permanent position at the uni and me more likely to move on before her, so her address would be valid for longer. But I agree with the other post- if there are only two authors anyway then it is often perceived as more of a joint effort than if there are a whole list of authors.

Personally, I think 4 papers is pretty good, even as second author. Of course first author is preferable, but many people come out of a PhD with no publications at all, so you are way ahead of a lot of people already. Your publications show that your work is of publishable quality, although it would be good to get a first author in if you can, as that also shows that your own writing is of publishable quality too! I think you should be pretty pleased with yourself! Best of luck with the submission! KB

Thank you Sue and Keenbean. Still confused though, my supervisor has submitted a paper which he admits he wrote pretty much alone but he felt it would look weird to be the only author and so added his PhD student as a sceond author as he used some of her DNA samples. Anyway she is listed as the first author and my supervisor the second and corresponding.

I'm guessing either she contributed more than my supervisor is letting on or he did it as a favour to her or this paper lists the names alphabetically and therefore the general first author is not valid.

Hehe shame.

Yeah I'm in biosciences so that might be why it's different but maybe not. Since it seems to be against what is normally the case I'll go with him doing her a favour as that's nice.

Thanks again.

Hmm...I have heard of all sorts of dodgy stuff going on with authorships- friends putting each other down as authors on papers to increase number of authorships per person, people contributing little or no academic content to the work but being added as an author because they corrected a spelling mistake or something ridiculous like that. I do think there are major politics behind a lot of authorship issues and a lot of friction between colleagues regarding who should be first author etc. With my supervisor all us PhD-ers are first author on our PhD work, and our primary supervisor goes second, and sometimes our second supervisor goes on as third author, depending on his input (generally not much). On my first publication I asked my primary supervisor if my second supervisor should go down as third author and she was clearly pissed off just at the thought of it- they get so touchy and competitive these academics! But a pal of mine had a supervisor who insisted on being first author on my pal's work, even though it was my pal's PhD and he had written the paper- I guess people vary, but I think I'd be hacked off in that sort of situation! Best, KB

Keenbean, it's funny how much variation there is even within a field. I am also in psychology, and authorship on most papers I've read puts the PhD/postdoc who the project primarily belongs to first, the supervisor or lab head last, then everyone else in the middle in order of greatest contribution.

Hmm, varies I think. I am in the social scinece, in the second year of my PhD. PhD related publication before a PhD is done is very unlikley in my dept and field but there are those who work on projects and get to be 2nd authors on research project papers.

I have one 9000 word piece in press right now, me as sole author. Based on my PhD. ANother, me as sole author, 8000 words, based on my PhD is under review. A third, joint with sup as first, written as a cross-generational reflexvie theoretical peice is in prep going tobe submitted to a very fancy journal (but this is supposed to be a dialogie between two generations, and we talk o me as the younger gen in the paper so in this paper I think its absolutely shared aiuthorship and Iinsisted she goes first on this)

For project wiritng,m she is alwys first although she'd offered once, but its her grant, her project and all, and we share the writing.

My phD, well I am writing my empirical chapters for particular journals from the outset so that I have all 3 empirical chapters under review at least by the time of viva. And they are all single.

But this is a little unusual (the continental model of a Phd rather than the UK model) but I'm having a go, so let's see

======= Date Modified 10 Feb 2010 21:52:34 =======
Hey Bug, that's the kind of thing I'm aiming for. I think different approaches suit different people- there are people under my supervisor who aren't planning to publish their work at all, but for me she has suggested that I take the publication approach as I really enjoy writing papers and apparently I write really well (according to my sup, although she makes two zillion changes every time!), so it makes sense to publish as I go along. I am aiming to have 2 theoretical papers, 3-4 results papers, and a discussion article submitted by the end of my PhD, but this seems to be quite a rare approach in my department too...I guess I already know I want to stay in research too, so I need publications and my sup is very keen on getting my stuff out there. At the moment I have two articles published and another ready to be submitted and I am 16 months into my PhD...I don't know if I'll hit my target number of publications, but at least it's something to aim for! It's strange your sup isn't insisting on being on your papers...has she had any input at all? I have written mine but my sup has looked at numerous drafts and made comments, and she goes on as second author which seems fair enough to me. I don't mind anyway, it's quite cool to see my name in print next to hers, I'm quite proud to be associated with her! KB

======= Date Modified 11 Feb 2010 07:42:15 =======
Hi KB - my sup is more involved in my writing than myself - actually my PhD is an empirical and theoretical response to a conceptual challenge she placed to our field in a research article 5 years ago. So in that sense she is *in* my thesis, for it's essentially a response to Prof X, 2006.

All our conversations on this are coming together in our cross generational paper which is very very theoretical. For the writing of my PhD she clarified at the outset that she wouldnt like to 'tread' on my PhD and I can see she wants single authore stuff as well from me, for all our project related writing (reports but eventual artiles, and now thinking of a book too!!) are all joint with her.

ANd oh she reads my drafts til version 23 was it the last time (!) and contributes to a ceaseless intellectual conversation at and after supervision. SHe even reads my abstracts that I submit for conerences and makes me rewrite even those!!!