Welcome to the newly redesigned Science Careers Forum. Please bookmark this site now for future reference. If you've previously posted to the forum, your current username and password will remain the same in the new system. If you've never posted or are new to the forum, you will need to create a new account.

The new forum is designed with some features to improve the user experience. Upgrades include:
- easy-to-read, threaded discussions
- ability to follow discussions and receive notifications of updates
- private messaging to other SC Forum members
- fully searchable database of posts
- ability to quote in your response
- basic HTML formatting available

Moderator: Dave Jensen
Advisors:   Ana, PG, Rich Lemert, Dick Woodward, Dave Walker
Meet the Moderator/Advisors

Re: Authorship...

Postby Andrew1 » Fri Sep 28, 2012 5:53 pm

No half-decent reviewer will let you get away with publishing a paper about a ko mouse without saying where the mouse comes from. Then again, many reviewers are not half-decent.
Posts: 428
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:28 pm

Re: Authorship...

Postby P.C. » Fri Sep 28, 2012 8:29 pm

If your are very close to submitting the paper, work faster, and get it through the review process. You might be able delay negotiation publication of the other post-docs paper and cite your paper as in press with such and such a journal.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education" - Mark Twain
Posts: 2439
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:28 pm

Re: Authorship...

Postby O.S. » Wed Oct 10, 2012 3:13 pm

To answer some of the questions:

My lab mate's paper will just note that the cells have been collected from XcKO mouse. My PI doesn't think the journal will ask for a description. I have told my PI that I do not consider my name should be on the paper if the paragraph is removed, but he said he will keep my name. Frankly, I think he just wanted to show he is generous, but really, who cares about a 3rd author paper that goes in a mediocre paper?

One collaborator to whom we also gifted the XcKO mouse agreed to also exclude any mouse description from the paper. This collaborator will mention the use of the XcKO mouse and in Materials and Methods section they will mention that the mouse will be described in a following paper.

Interestingly, my lab mate's paper review came back. The paper was rejected, with only two positive comments:
1.the findings are potentially interesting (if supported by a new set of experiments)
2.the XcKO model was excellent
This doesn't give me authorship, but it made me realize that my work was indeed appreciated and it was justifiable for me to ask for more than what I was given.

And, just in case I was not sure my lab mate is playing dirty, 2 days after the authorship dilemma she highjacked my BIG project. She just started working on protein X importance in signaling in Y cells in yet another mouse model I created. She actually asked me for cells, reagents, protocols to "continue" my experiments. I said NO. She tried to imply that she has an idea that she wants to test in cells from the mouse model that I created. And looking at the same cellular process that I am also investigating.
Well, I do not think she will pursue this, since I have 2 years of a head start. But if she does,
let's see who publishes first.
I am working hard on finishing my paper meanwhile.
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 12:12 am

Re: Priorities

Postby P.C. » Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:06 pm

You should be spending most of your time on getting your publication(s) out. If you are not, you will be sorry for yourself looking back in old age that you failed to take the initiative and leadership in your own career path.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education" - Mark Twain
Posts: 2439
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:28 pm

Re: Authorship...

Postby A.Tyrol » Mon Nov 12, 2012 4:27 am

Hi O.S.,

O.S. wrote:1. I have VERY solid grounds to ask for first co-authorship, but be prepared for the lab mate to say no.
2. I can ask for the paragraph with the mouse description to be taken out of her paper. Since her paper will most likely be published before mine, she will still get a lot of credit for the mouse, but at least everybody who takes time to track down the mouse design will give me the credit (for a job interview I can also prove this was my work)
3. If all fails, I can go to the editorial board of the journal and make a bad case, and like everybody said, ruin my reputation; and most probably still lose in the end.

In the end after a long conversation with my PI he realized it was a big mistake not to be given credit for the mouse and asked me what I want. I chose solution #2 (take out the paragraph with the mouse description) since I do not want any more confrontation with the lab mate.

I don't think this is a good decision. Whether you have a confrontation with your lab mate or not is not so important; what *is* important is your level of contribution to the research and if you think you deserve a shared 1st author position you should say so.

What I find more disturbing, though, is that you write "I have received the manuscript only after it was submitted to the journal". This is definitely not acceptable. You should definitely talk *and* write an email to the boss of your boss.

Before submitting a paper, all co-authors must have been given the chance to read and approve the manuscript. Goes without saying. If your PI does not consider this necessary, no wonder he also doesn't care about your contribution to the research.
User avatar
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:48 pm

Re: Authorship...

Postby PACN » Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:20 am

My advice would be to let this go. I think there are several problems with your arguments: 1. If you only created the mouse and the current first author designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, and wrote the paper, she deserves to be first author and you do not. 2. I can't speak to all journals, but my journal would never allow you to reference a mouse that is not published and not described. Hopefully most reviewers would notice this, and, if not, the journal staff. It's completely unreasonable. If the proper functioning of the cKO is essential to the conclusions of the paper, you have to provide enough information to judge whether those conclusions are valid. And finally, 3. I don't think this is going to hurt you as much as you think. As far as applying for a job, unless you are applying for a job at a core facility or company that makes knockout mice, your ability to prove that you made a particular mouse is not going to be critical.
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:53 pm

Re: Authorship...

Postby Priya.S » Wed Nov 14, 2012 1:41 pm

I agree with the previous posters that it is absurd to submit the results of this totally new cKO mouse without describing how the mouse was made or the proper positive/negative controls. Makes me question the PI's scientific thought process.

Second, it might have been best if your labmate's paper could have waited till you submitted yours or you could submitted both simultaneously and she could have just referenced your paper as 'in review' or manuscript submitted'. I know in 'real world' this is hard to accomplish. It is not suprising that the paper was rejected. Any thorough reviewer would have rejected it because important parts have been left out.
Posts: 160
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:43 pm


Return to Science Careers Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests