Advisor wants first author. Do I have any leverage?

Question

I'm doing undergrad research with a team, advised by a professor. I have a good relationship with this professor, but told us after the research started that he would be first author. I was at first just excited to do research, but the more I think about it, the more I think this isn't right.

1. His contribution was the original idea- not a fleshed out idea that we just implemented, but a very general "try this approach," a push in the right direction. Taking this approach, mind you, would be obvious to anyone well versed in the field (as I have learned), and within this approach, there are thousands of different avenues we could go to try achieving the results we want.

2. We have spent months doing research, and we have weekly-ish meetings, in which he asks us questions about what we're doing (we explain how our work, because it is our own creation) and he reminds us to write down everything we do. This has been his contribution for the duration of the project.

3. We are expected to write the entire paper ourselves- which he will then edit.

I have a meeting with him (one on one) in the near future and I would really like to bring this up, because first authorship would be huge for me or anyone on my team, whereas he already has an academic career. But I am only a first year, and he has expressed interest in doing future research with me.

My question is: do I have any leverage in this argument? Can I present this as a deal breaker for me for future projects? Is there any other way to denote who actually did the work that I can push for here? I'm not sure if he wants to make it seem like he did the work or if that's just "what we do" in my department for undergrad research. I don't want to ruin my relationship with this professor, but I also don't want to feel like my team and I are being taken advantage of.

Responses to questions:

• My field is applied computer science
• I think it would make sense for either my friend or me to be first author (I don't think having to make this choice would lead to problems)
• I have no objection to co-first-authorship, but it would have to be me and my friend, not one of us plus the professor.

Answer 1

Although Buffy's advice to let this go is practical, and I agree that would be perfectly fine, I think you have a second option here. Namely, if you are careful, you can bring up your concern with the advisor. However, if you do this, you shouldn't phrase it as an accusation or a claim that someone else should be first author; that would be unnecessarily antagonistic and probably would not help your case.

Instead, you could phrase it as a question. Say that you would like to understand how authorship order is determined better. Although you assume that the author order has already been agreed upon for this particular paper, as a starting researcher you are curious about the etiquette of authorship. You can ask if it is common for the PI to be first author in your area. Depending on how receptive he is, you can ask other questions.

If you follow this approach, then probably one of two things will happen:

• First, he could become defensive and dismissive. This is more likely if he is really being unethical. In this case, Buffy is probably right that your best bet is to let this go for now. Sadly, these things happen; author order isn't always determined correctly, and that can be either due to honest error or due to dishonesty. You could always talk to another professor or mentor for moral support and to assess how to proceed (particularly for future projects), but probably for this one accepting the order is not such a big deal in the grand scheme of things.

• Second, he could be helpful and receptive. Maybe he will explain that he is usually first author on his papers. Perhaps he has a good reason for this. For example, in some fields, that is accepted, while in others that is pretty condemned (I don't know what is the case for your field). But he could also have some personal justification for why to go against the convention. I would not agree with him, but perhaps if he explains this then it would make it easier for you to understand.

Whatever you decide, try to see the bigger picture that authorship is not always obvious, and this professor will be judged for his own actions by colleagues and the community in the future; it's to some extent out of your hands. Good luck.

Answer 2

The idea was his. He guided you throughout, giving ideas ("try this"). He seems to clearly have been the "team leader" from what you say. In the absence of any dramatically different information or analysis, I suggest that you let this go. You get a publication. It isn't a doctoral thesis. You gained knowledge that will help you later. Lots of good things here.

And, in general, fighting with advisors is a poor career move.

But, in future projects, especially when the idea for the research comes from you, settle the question of first authorship at the start. Or, just decline to participate, citing other commitments.

In fact, even in this case, it was settled at (or near) the start. And if there were many participants, it may not be clear that anyone else has a better claim.

Depending you your field, this is a typical thing. Even when the PI is listed last on a paper, many (not all) people assume that it was the PI that "really" did the work.

Answer 3

I agree with @Buffy that you should let this go and not bring it up. Even in a veiled-yet-transparent way, as @6005 suggested (I don't see any way you could bring that up, now, in a way that doesn't create needless conflict with the person helping you through your early career).

I'm fortunate to be in a field (econ) where the order of authorship is always alphabetical, so this doesn't come up. But even here, there's a fairly famous story of a firmly-established, well-known professor telling one of his grad students something like: "This is great work, and will for sure get published. It was sufficiently your own that you can publish it with yourself as the only author. If you do so, it will go to a good journal. Now, if you want to put my name on it also, then it will surely be published by the best journal in the field. The choice is entirely yours."

The story goes that the student opted to put his advisers name on, and sure enough, was published in the top journal.

My point here is that, rightly or wrongly, you shouldn't think of authorship as strictly merit based. Right now, despite everything you wrote, it strikes me as utterly normal that the professor overseeing undergraduate researchers would be the first author. Instead of fretting over it, be very happy that you're getting authorship as an undergrad (maybe that's normal in your field; in my that's incredibly rare), and then think toward the future.

Regardless, congrats on having a professor who is this interested in doing research with someone who is still early in their undergraduate career! It certainly speaks well to your work so far.

Answer 4

You state that you are an undergraduate, and that you have a good relationship with the professor. Based on these points, I'd urge you to regard this as an opportunity to learn, and maybe to deepen a relationship with somebody more senior in your field, instead of viewing it as an opportunity to build your resume.

I would advise that you do discuss it with your adviser. Not as a negotiation, but with an inquisitive approach. Be upfront that in an ideal world, you would like to be the first author. Make the case, as you have here -- but don't dwell on it overly -- (a) why you think that would be fair, and (b) why it would be advantageous.

But spend more energy on asking questions (which I'll pull and reframe from your question). Keep your mind as open as you can to the answers.

1. How would he describe the contribution he, you, and others have made to the project? How significant does he feel his expertise is? How does he perceive the quantity and quality of work of the various participants?
2. How might it be helpful to him, in his career, to be listed as first author?
3. What will the editing process look like, and how will it add value to the final product? Does he expect to be just tweaking grammar and spelling, or will he also be looking for substantive critique of how you present the project?
4. What might a negotiation look like at this point? Is he open to arguments that somebody else should be listed as first author? If so, what kinds of arguments would be persuasive? What might he consider irrelevant?
5. How does he view the ethics of the decision, considering these points -- and presumably other points that you haven't brought up?
6. As your career moves forward, how would he advise you to approach first authorship in future situations?

If you can get some good answers to questions like this from somebody in your field, it might help your career more than simply getting first authorship on this paper.

Answer 5

You should consider the following:

-The importance of the paper to your professor may be dependent on their appointment. For instance, if they are an assistant professor and tenure track, this may be beneficial for their tenure package (in addition to grant money, teaching load, teaching scores...). You may be unaware that if a professor is tenure track, they have typically 7 years to obtain tenure to promote to an associate professor, or tenured professor. If that does not occur, then they will be released from their job. If they are an associate professor, this is less important, as at least their appointment is not on the line.

-Don't underestimate the amount of time that it will take for your advisor to perform the editing, which can take longer than just writing the paper themselves. In addition, you will need the expertise of your advisor to help craft a paper that will make it through peer review successfully, with hopefully minimal editing.

If you do not feel like there is a good return on your time in writing the paper, then you have done enough work to legitimately be included on the paper (and get a good recommendation if things are left on good terms). However, there is a reasonable chance that the paper may never be written, depending on how busy your advisor is. Alternatively, you could write the paper as a second author, and relay to your advisor that you really enjoyed this project and would like to be primary on the next project. This would be the ideal scenario if you are looking at graduate school, as the relationship between you and the advisor would have been mutually beneficial and would result in a presumably strong letter of recommendation.

Answer 6

You might not realize it but your supervisor might have known in advance what will work and how it will work. When he says "try this" this is frequently a way to pretend that he doesn't know so as to stimulate the undergrads to work (it's is very discouraging to work on something that is sure to work out, there is no excitement then). However the "try this" is often built on years of experience, and he might know very well how this project is going to go, what works and what doesn't. It might have looked like he didn't do much work, but there might be a lot experience behind it that you are discounting. Generally speaking imagine that your supervisor did not exist, would that project be possible, would it surface at all? Imagine now that you never contributed to that project, would it exist? If the answer is NO and YES then clearly he should be first author.

Answer 7

Make a play for alphabetically/arbitrarily listed names.

I agree with @Buffy's answer and mostly-agree with @AnonymousPhysicist's supplement: The advisor's conduct is inappropriate: If you were his equal(s), he would be in the right to expect first authorship; but as an advisor, he should take the step back. But the bottom line is that he has a legitimate claim to first-authorship, and circumstances are not such that you can or should apply leverage.

Having said that... I have a potential practical suggestion. The chances of it working depend on the field you're in, but it most probably will not be perceived as antagonistic.

If you can secure the agreement of all other named authors, approach the advisor together, and tell him that you would like author naming to be alphabetical, rather than by supposed order of contribution, with a footnote to that effect.

There are several (sub)fields in academia where this is actually the norm - and I believe other fields should adopt this as well. If you agree - use this opportunity. It has the positive byproduct of your advisor not being "meaningfully first".

Answer 8

I agree with the other answers that you don't have much leverage to negotiate authorship with your advisor and should not try. But I wanted to answer this part of the question:

Can I present this as a deal breaker for me for future projects?

The deal is already broken. No presenting is required. Assuming you work in a field where author order is important, the supervisor's behaviour is exploitative. You should not work with them on future projects if you have an alternative.

Answer 9

I have experience with both possibilities at two different occasions, with two different people:

1. I came up for my rights. This started a conflict. It ruined our working relationship.

2. I did not come up for my rights. Several years later this still hurts: the paper was mine and the person stole it.

With hindsight I prefer option 2: ask yourself the question what you have to gain with conflict. The more senior person almost certainly has thought about the order of authors and has already made a decision. If you fight it, you will always risk more than you will gain.

One really helpful thing for me was to investigate what I could gain: in the first situation I did not gain anything. In the second situation I gained a lot: I learned very rapidly whom I could trust. I will always be careful with that person, but I did not invest emotionally in the conflict. If you want to fight back: write a solo-authored paper.

One lesson learned: before I start researching and writing a paper, I ask all people involved what their view on authorship is. That view can be changed during the writing process, but that way I create some safety.

I know there are already good answers to this question, but I wanted to throw this out there in case anyone needed to hear it.

Answer 10

Some Elsevier journals are using the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) author statement. It clarifies what the authors did, but does not help with the order of the author names.
Maybe you can add such a section near the acknowledgment section. If you like the idea, talk to your advisor about it. Be aware, that it's a new approach and might be unknown to your advisor.

Citing from the CRediT homepage:

CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) was introduced with the intention of recognizing individual author contributions, reducing authorship disputes and facilitating collaboration. The idea came about following a 2012 collaborative workshop led by Harvard University and the Wellcome Trust, with input from researchers, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and publishers, including Elsevier, represented by Cell Press.

CRediT offers authors the opportunity to share an accurate and detailed description of their diverse contributions to the published work.

The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that the descriptions are accurate and agreed by all authors. The role(s) of all authors should be listed, using the relevant above categories. Authors may have contributed in multiple roles. CRediT in no way changes the journal’s criteria to qualify for authorship. CRediT statements should be provided during the submission process and will appear above the acknowledgement section of the published paper as shown further below.

[list of potential roles]

Sample CRediT author statement
Zhang San: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software Priya Singh.: Data curation, Writing- Original draft preparation. Wang Wu: Visualization, Investigation. Jan Jansen: Supervision.: Ajay Kumar: Software, Validation.: Sun Qi: Writing- Reviewing and Editing,