Shared second authorship

Question

Up front, up until now I have avoided shared first-authorships, and I have no experience with this construct first hand.

However, I am working on a manuscript (as a 1^st author) on a clinical study based on retrospective analysis of electronic patient files. Two undergrad students have contributed substantially during their internship. These two folks both deserve a second authorship imho.

The field is picky in term of author order, in that there are three interesting positions on a paper; 1^st, 2^nd, and last. The 1^st is credited with writing up the paper and is considered the main author. The 2^nd typically was hands-on involved in the work, and ideally has co-written the paper. The last author is often the department head who secured funding, generated the research question and looks at drafts of the MS. Intermediate positions are worth the effort, but seen as 'less important'. First authors are often PhD students, second authors often are postdocs or senior researchers, last authors typically are professors or department heads.

To illustrate the roles of the students' respective contributions:

Student #1 (MSc Medicine) started on the project and supplemented the database with a lot of missing data by manually sifting through electronic patient files. They wrote an excellent Introduction in their report, and an OK Discussion. I didn't really copy anything ad verbatim into the MS, but I sure am leaning a lot on their original report in terms of the cited literature, the pros and cons of our study, and overall report structure.

Student #2 (BSc Biomedical Sciences) re-analyzed the whole dataset based on new insights, and they finetuned the variables in the database. I am using their data preprocessing pipeline, their analyses and outcomes, and I am using their tables and graphs by polishing them up to publication standards.

Imho, they both deserve a 2^nd authorship. Is this appropriate given their respective contributions? More importantly, is a shared 2^nd authorship something that's done more often in the first place?

Answer 1

I don't think I've seen a shared "second author" note "in the wild", but a quick search turns up a few examples so apparently this happens.

In my experience, authorship order in biomedical science more broadly besides first and last just isn't that important; if there's a logical order, great, and some decision must be made (I've lost and can't immediately find a link to the joke paper, on arxiv I think, where they presented all the author names in overlapping type as a solution to these problems). I guess I'm a bit skeptical that people will actually see the second position the same way you do, and even if it's tradition within a small area, I would expect the people making decisions for hiring, etc, to follow more general principles when evaluating contributions to work.

Another consideration is that perhaps when someone is doing most of the hands-on work, they should be expected to write the bulk of the paper and take the role of the first author. In the future, I'd think about whether it seems a bit like you've "stolen" the paper from the people who did the work by writing the text. Another authorship scheme that may be appropriate is something like a co-senior authorship, where you as a primary mentor assisting with the writing and analysis might be the last author, and another senior author providing funding and more big-picture guidance would be placed second to last. I don't think it's necessarily appropriate to change anything for this specific paper, just something to think about and discuss beforehand (especially with students for whom this is all very new, you likely should expect to explain all the responsibilities and possible benefits).

In any case, I don't think there's any harm in declaring a joint second authorship, or an equivalent "these authors contributed equally" with a symbol by the 2nd and 3rd names in the list. However, I'd also consider choosing the actual order somewhat randomly, whether or not any explanatory note is made, if there's no fair order otherwise.

Answer 2

I think that both of the students have contributed substantially and don't see a reason to "favor" one over the other. If your field is picky about author order, then yes, shared second authorship is fine.

However, I'm going to suggest that shared first authorship is also a possibility, especially if you want to be (just a bit) generous as a faculty member.

You seem to suggest that #1 has contribute substantially to the manuscript and its basis. You seem to suggest that #2 has contributed important insights. That, to me, sounds like a collaboration of (more or less) equals.

However, I tend to be generous in such things and believe that boosting students is one of my key roles. I don't think you lose anything with an equal contribution statement. You don't, however, give the background of the intellectual impetus of the study. If it is yours alone, then my suggestion might be too much, but I'd consider it, in any case.