'A Lie and a Sham'
02/03/12 18:54 Filed in: GenomeWeb Daily Scan
Submitted by S. Pelech - Kinexus on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 18:54.
The assignment of authorship order in scientific manuscripts is almost always a political issue, especially for research projects that require multiple techniques, diverse expertise, and extensive collaboration. For example, many genome sequencing papers have 50 or more authors. In such cases, is it the first or last author that is really the key figure? If there are two first authors that have each made equal major contributions, what does this say about the involvement of the rest of the authors? Since the senior author is most often the true intellectual and financial driver of the research, perhaps it would be more appropriate and meaningful to cite published papers by the last author.
Clearly every situation is unique with respect to acknowledging the major contributors to a scientific piece of work. Is it probably a wise to have a variety of solutions, including co-first authorship, to contend with this. Ultimately, the real contribution of an individual to science will be measured by the body of work done by the person over many years, especially after they have concluded their formal training. A large number of first and senior author publications will indicate that the researcher is truly talented and productive. A one hit wonder or a missed first authorship will ultimately mean relatively little to one's career.
Link to the original blog post.
The assignment of authorship order in scientific manuscripts is almost always a political issue, especially for research projects that require multiple techniques, diverse expertise, and extensive collaboration. For example, many genome sequencing papers have 50 or more authors. In such cases, is it the first or last author that is really the key figure? If there are two first authors that have each made equal major contributions, what does this say about the involvement of the rest of the authors? Since the senior author is most often the true intellectual and financial driver of the research, perhaps it would be more appropriate and meaningful to cite published papers by the last author.
Clearly every situation is unique with respect to acknowledging the major contributors to a scientific piece of work. Is it probably a wise to have a variety of solutions, including co-first authorship, to contend with this. Ultimately, the real contribution of an individual to science will be measured by the body of work done by the person over many years, especially after they have concluded their formal training. A large number of first and senior author publications will indicate that the researcher is truly talented and productive. A one hit wonder or a missed first authorship will ultimately mean relatively little to one's career.
Link to the original blog post.