How to list coauthors on CV

[Dave Jensen]

Ken,

I agree with you. Rotten luck for Zydor. Except that in many research projects, more than one paper can come out of the work. Aaronson and Zydor then switch their positions on the following paper, right?

Dave

[Andrew]

It is obvious to anyone who looks if a author list is in alphabetical order. If I look up a paper and find someone switched the order of the names on their resume, I will drop their resume in the trash. The order of authors is something you address at publication, not when putting your resume together.

[John Fetzer]

It looks fishy to someone who might check. If someone has a short CV, being a first author most of the time is unlikely. I'd be inclined to look a few up. If I did see a different order, that person is tainted as inflating their accomplishments. It might be unfair, but to a potential hirer it is not much different than say you have any other accomplishments that you do not. Among dozens of CVs, I cannot make sure. I'd just put that CV aside.

John

[Andy]

Responding to Dave's post: People who read CV's all day may not look at asterisks, but I'll bet a hiring manager would. I certainly would. In addition, I would look up the papers by anyone whom I was about to hire. Better that I be surprised and see that he/she is actually a "shared first author" than to be surprised to see that the published author order had been changed.

Play it safe. Don't change the order. It could only hurt you.

Carmen, since you've sent your CV out changed already, just have a quick comment ready to add about the shared author paper and spin it into a "working as a team" thing.

Andy

[Carmen]

I am very grateful for all the considerate points raised after my question. I think it does hurt a bit if you happen to be the second co-first author. You sort have a feeling that you are in the dark since you have to rely on denoting your name with "stars" in order to be visible and hope that whoever read your resume will be a very careful person. Especially if you have a long list, the denotation is on another page.

I think that we should ask the journals to note that "Names of the first two (or three) authors can be listed in any way" instead of that "the first two authors contributed equally to this work" in the future.

How do you all think? Let's start to lobby our editor friends.

[Mario]

I will suggest, in the CV under the publication section have at least three sub-sections.
1- First authorship
2- Contributor (something like that)
3- Reviews
But, change the order sounds incorrect to me

[Carmen]

I agree with Mario's strategy a lot. Wish I have talked to you before I sent my CVs out.

Here is my proposed categories:

First author and co-first author research papers
Middle author research papers
Review and Book Chapters

Put denotation at the begining of the publication section.

[Paul]

The issue of Ethical vs Unethical to switch the names is interesting.

If someone is "first author", albeit "joint", is it unethical to list their name first on their own resume? A resume is an advertisement for that candidate. Shouldn't they present themselves as effectively as possible? From working in a big lab where "co-first" happen frequently, there is an understanding that the "second" name can switch it around on their resume.

I don't think it should be the job of the hiring manager or the HR person to assume fraud and to trash someones application because of attempting to present themself fully. THIS strikes me as unethical. Everyone knows (because its been discussed many times on this forum) that employers are bombarded with CV's and perform "first phase" screening. One part of this is looking for first authors. If the hiring managers and HR people could be more thorough and actually pay attention to something as simple as an asterix then we wouldn't be discussing this but this is clearly not going to happen due to apathy/volume of applications/quality of other candidates.

I suppose I equate this situation to someone who usually wears jeans to work putting on a suit for the interview. Its not lying, its presenting!

I DO think, given the conflict in opinion here (and the severity of outcome of some of those opinions) it would be worth lobbying editors to consider rephrasing the "co-first" scenario to facilitate the Zydmens and Zendens of the science world to not be tarred as "unethical" should they want to truthfully represent their actually publication record.

[Andy]

Paul, I completely see where you are coming from. In my mind, it's less a question of ethical v. unethical and more a situation where you don't want anyone to question your integrity.

A first author paper is better than a shared first author paper. So if you just list your name first (even though you are second) WITHOUT indicating by asterisk that it was a shared first author paper, then you are misrepresenting the contributions of the "first first author." It's not consistent to say that (1) I am listing my name first because it was a co-first author paper, and (2) I'm not going to indicate that it was a shared first author paper.

If you are a "second first author" and you list your name first WITHOUT indicating co-authorship, you are misrepresnting reality. I think it might be acceptable to some people to list your name first while at the same time indicating the co-authorship. However, like I'll say for the last time I promise, you should play it safe and leave it alone. Why give anyone a reason to question you?

Andy

[John Fetzer]

Sub-categorizing into main authors, collaborating authors, reviews and book chapters, and non-peer reviewed publications (letters to the editor or to a trade hournal such as American Laboratory are examples) sounds good. With only a few publications, a person can emphasize and differentiate.

Once you get numerous papers, it does not matter very much. People look at who you worked with to see if there are any recognized names. Even as a lesser author, working with a "big name" collaborator means something.

John