Ever paid any attention to the order of authors on your publications? Are you first, are you in the middle, are you last, or are you corresponding author? Would you like to pursue a career in science? If so, do consider these aspects. When your publication list is being scrutinized by an evaluation committee, be it for a new job, for a promotion, or for awarding a research grant, the issue of the order of authorships might become an issue, and often it does. The following arguments can be put forward.
Are you only rarely first author? This fact is often interpreted as lack of leadership. A successful scientist is expected to be the first author on most of his or her papers. First authors should have had the important ideas, carried out most of the experiments, contributed most to the work, wrote the paper, and so on. You consider selfish to push yourself to be the first author all the time? No reason to worry. Scientific committees will hardly consider selfishness as a negative attribute of a successful scientist.
Are you never last author? This fact can be interpreted as lack of independence. In many disciplines, the last author is the head of the research group. These people acquire research funds, are responsible for the research group, conceive the research, and had the important ideas. Never mind whether the first or last authors had the more important ones. Whether all your articles are coauthored by your PhD or postdoc advisors could also be used as another indicator to access your independence.
Are you always a middle author? Well, that's asking for trouble. A committee may turn this fact into a problem for you. One may argue that you were a mere follower, that you did not play any important role in the work, and in fact that you hardly did ever anything important for the article. Your name as a coauthor could have been skipped equally well.
Researchers in some areas stress the corresponding author, often marked with a star, to be the relevant person. One may argue that the corresponding author is the person that knows most about the research described in the article, and that this author bears the full responsibility for all the results. Do not pay much attention to all this. The stars have tendency to get lost in standardized publication lists, and when things really turn badly, the responsibility is hardly assumed by the corresponding author.
A small fraction of journals require authors to explicitly state what their role in the article the article was. That's of course a nice idea, but this information is hardly passed to publication lists. Looking this all up in the original articles is too much work, so this information is gladly being skipped.
You think that all this is contradictory, arbitrary, and possibly incorrect? Bit like reading tea leaves? Of course, you are right. But do not expect that argumentation lines in scientific committees are always rock solid. These committees are normally expected to make selections, such as, lists of projects to be funded or short lists of candidates. These selections can be difficult, especially when success rates are low. Any arguments for rejection are gladly considered, and they may also include the aspects concerning authorships discussed above. These arguments may be put forward by some committee members or external reviewers, other committee members may question them, and at the end the person capable to make his or her point in the most convincing or forceful fashion wins. Other evaluation committees prefer point systems to arrive at raking lists, but again the evaluators may assign points based on arguments based on authorships. It may equally happen that during an evaluation any of the above considerations may even not be mentioned. However, if you keep applying to various programs, especially when they are competitive, rest assured, they will.
Michal Borkovec, November 14, 2014
There are no comments on this article yet. You may enter one with the button below.