phd paper first author

First Author vs. Corresponding Author? How to Decide Which to Choose

This article discusses the importance of authorship in academic publishing. The first author executes a large portion of the work throughout the research process and signifies the researcher has provided the greatest intellectual contribution. The corresponding author is explicitly identified on the first page of the manuscript, is selected to further manage the pre and post-publication responsibilities, and serves as the point of contact for communication with a journal during the submission, peer review, and publication process.

Updated on April 26, 2023

Every process is conducted through a series of steps. The Scientific Method, for example, provides guidelines for navigating the research process and generally includes:

• Making observations
• Identifying a problem
• Formulating a hypothesis
• Designing an experiment
• Analyzing the data
• Reporting a conclusion

While the actual procedures may vary between fields, the underlying process remains intact. The same holds true for the publication process:

• Complete your research
• Choose a journal
• Prepare the manuscript
• Submit the manuscript
• Make any revisions
• Publication

Each of these processes contains many more specific steps and processes, including assigning authorship to the research manuscript . This article outlines the importance of authorship, delineates the meanings of first author and corresponding author, and addresses some of the challenges associated with the process.

Why is authorship important?

On the surface, the positioning of a researcher’s name and title on a manuscript seems straightforward, a simple task. Most lay people use the list of names solely for searching and citation purposes.

In reality, though, the order of those names tells a complex story of authorship. It is, in fact, the primary way for a researcher to convey the extent of their contribution to the reader.

To attain authorship on a manuscript, a researcher must not only contribute substantially to the work but also take responsibility and accountability for the information it contains. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommends authorship be based on 4 specific criteria related to these broad principles.

With authorship comes both recognition and obligation that have important academic, social, and financial implications. The two most prominent authorship positions are first author and corresponding author .

What is the first author?

The first author position is a coveted spot. No matter how many other authors’ names appear on the manuscript or which referencing style is used, the first author’s last name will be mentioned in every future citation of the work.

For this reason alone, the name of the first author is remembered, indexed, and promoted more than any other. It is not just a status symbol, though. The first author executes a large portion or majority of the work throughout the research process.

First author credit signifies the researcher has provided the greatest intellectual contribution, and, therefore, comes with substantial benefits. The manuscripts of first authors hold substantial value for grant and position applications, staff appraisals and reviews, and many other forms of career development.

First author duties

The designation as first author is not based on academic or professional hierarchy, the prestige, or expertise of the author. It’s based on the inputs and outputs of work. First authors must:

• Make significant, original, and insightful intellectual contributions
• Participate in the conception and planning of the study
• Generate data through performing experiments, conducting literature reviews, and organizing surveys and interviews
• Analyze the results through statistical analysis and by generating graphs, tables, and illustrations
• Write and edit the manuscript
• Help with queries and revisions after submission

The researcher fulfilling all these duties is rightfully the first author.

What is the corresponding author?

Like the first author designation, the title of corresponding author also comes with considerable prestige. The corresponding author is explicitly identified on the first page of the manuscript. In addition to meeting all the preexisting authorship requirements, this person is selected to further manage the pre and post-publication responsibilities.

The corresponding author is customarily a senior researcher or academic with extensive publishing knowledge and experience. As the primary source of communication for both the publisher and the readers, the corresponding author’s contact information is included within the article.

The corresponding author must have exceptional communication skills. The role assumes primary responsibility for connecting with target journals. They must be organized and meticulous with the substantial volume of tasks associated with the position.

Corresponding author duties

Neither electing a corresponding author nor accepting the position should be taken lightly as it is an essential and long lasting obligation. The duties span from prior to publication to well afterwards and include:

While all corresponding authors serve as the point of contact for communication with a journal during the submission, peer review, and publication process, some journals outline additional conditions for the role. The National Academy of Sciences offers a table that compiles the corresponding author requirements for various journals.

What if there are authorship disputes or changes?

While openly discussing and defining a research team’s roles during the initial planning phase is vital for curbing authorship disputes, combining this practice with other forward-thinking acts is key. Responsibilities and work status must be addressed during regularly scheduled meetings and special meetings need to be called when a team member is added or ends involvement in the project.

How to avoid authorship disputes

To avoid disputes, teams start by mapping out the most obvious roles, author and non-author contributor, and by rejecting any proposed “non-role.” The input of non-author contributors is narrow in scope, providing technical, administrative or writing assistance, and does not fulfill the previously outlined authorship criteria.

A non-role is any inappropriate or irrelevant participant who will harm the research process, such as unethical types of authors . This category encompasses guest authors, forged authors, ghost authors, and orphan authors and must be avoided at all costs.

Many journals require a document be included with the submission package to delineate author contributions to explain and justify author order. By creating this list as a living document from the outset, a research team fulfills the prerequisite for the publisher and guarantees transparency and fairness throughout.

Because changing authorship after publication is messy, necessitating specific documentation, signatures, and approval, it is frowned upon by journal editors. While taking proactive steps to avoid disputes that may result in this situation saves the research team time and hassle, it does not always alleviate future changes.

The addition, removal, or reordering of authors on a manuscript while actively going through the publication process requires a letter signed by all original and additional authors stating the reason for the change and their mutual agreement. For changes made after publication, an authorship corrigendum must be submitted by all authors per COPE guidelines .

Final thoughts

Getting to the manuscript writing and publication stages of a research project are exciting milestones for everyone involved. Ideally, authorship roles are clearly defined and assigned at this point.

Though the first author and corresponding author positions are sometimes performed by the same person, the obligations of each are unique. The first author undertakes the bulk of work duties and makes a significant intellectual contribution to the research project. The corresponding author carries out the communication and administrative tasks necessary for publishing the manuscript.

Both roles are vital to the research and publication processes. They require intense labor and responsibility. With this comes great recognition and prestige for first authors and corresponding authors.

Charla Viera, MS

See our "Privacy Policy"

Deciding the order of authors on a paper

Authorship in Research

Dr. Shazia Khanam

In my earlier post on authorship, I had discussed ICMJE guidelines  that help researchers in deciding whether a contributor qualifies to be an author or not. In this post, I am going to discuss the order in which author names should be included in a multi-author paper. The order of authors on a scientific paper needs to be determined after careful deliberation. Prior to deciding the author order, it is important to understand the concept of a first and a corresponding author.

Who should be the first author?

The first author is usually the person who has made the most significant intellectual contribution to the work, in terms designing the study,  acquiring and analyzing data from experiments, and writing the manuscript. The importance of the first author is  reflected in the common practice of referring to a paper by the first author’s name e.g. ‘Jones et al. report that…’ Publishing a paper as the first author is very crucial for the scientific career of a Ph.D. student.

Most Ph.D. programs worldwide require a Ph.D. student to have at least one first-authored paper in order to qualify for a degree. So an authorship dispute would be inevitable if two Ph.D. students were to work on the same project for their degree. For post-doctoral researchers and senior professors, publishing first-authored papers is important for receiving funding and getting promoted or re-hired. Thus, the first name in an author list is the most sought-after position in a scientific publication.

After the first author, the subsequent authors are usually listed as per their contribution to the research, starting with the one who contributed the most to the least. However, sometimes multiple authors may have contributed equally, in which case the order of author names does not matter, and you can inform the journal editor of this. In order to avoid any authorship dispute, it is a good practice to discuss authorship and the order of authors at the beginning of the project itself, and keep a record of each of the contributors involved throughout the project.

What is the role of a corresponding author?

At the time of submission of a manuscript, journals require you to choose one of the authors as the corresponding author . The corresponding author is the one who receives all notifications from the journal including manuscript status, reviewers’ comments, and the final decision. Although journals usually perceive the role of a corresponding author as purely administrative, this role is associated with seniority in some cultures. The corresponding author is often the group leader or a senior researcher whose contact address is not likely to change in the near future. In cases where the main contributor of the study is also the group leader, he or she can be both the first and corresponding author for the study.

Related reading:

• What corresponding authors are expected to do after journal submission
• 5 Pre-submission tips for corresponding authors
• Can the corresponding authors and order of authors be changed in the revised paper?
• Can I write to the editor if I'm the first author but not the corresponding author?
• Corresponding author assigns co-authors without their knowledge: A case study
• How to submit a paper with two corresponding authors if the online submission system doesn't allow this?

for this article

Published on: Oct 16, 2013

• Author Guidelines
• Co-Authorship
• Authorship Conflict

You're looking to give wings to your academic career and publication journey. We like that!

Why don't we give you complete access! Create a free account and get unlimited access to all resources & a vibrant researcher community.

One click sign-in with your social accounts

Sign up via email

1536 visitors saw this today and 1210 signed up.

Subscribe to Conducting Research

Confirm that you would also like to sign up for free personalized email coaching for this stage.

Related Reading

Authorship: An evolving concept

Does your target journal allow more than one corresponding author? A…

Basics of authorship in academic publishing

Deciding the order of authors on a paper 3 min read

6 Pre-submission tips for corresponding authors 7 min read

What corresponding authors are expected to do after journal submission 6 min read

How journals are using CRediT to capture author contributions in Editorial Manager 5 min read

Defining authorship: A taxonomy to assign contributor roles in multi-author papers 4 min read

Trending Searches

• Statement of the problem
• Background of study
• Scope of the study
• Types of qualitative research
• Rationale of the study
• Concept paper
• Literature review
• Introduction in research
• Under "Editor Evaluation"
• Ethics in research

Recent Searches

• Review paper
• Responding to reviewer comments
• Predatory publishers
• Scope and delimitations
• Open access
• Plagiarism in research
• Journal selection tips
• Editor assigned
• Types of articles
• "Reject and Resubmit" status
• Decision in process
• Conflict of interest

Postdoctoral Job Offers: How First-Author Publications Help Shape Research Careers

What does being the first author (or lead author) actually mean? In most cases, especially in academic publishing , the author listed first on a published article is the one who has done the research and has written and edited the paper. He or she is also most likely the contact person for the targeted journal’s editors after their review. Co-authors have usually contributed in a lesser capacity; however, this is not always the case for all disciplines. For example, in the field of mathematics , authors are listed alphabetically because “in most areas of mathematics, joint good-quality research is a sharing of ideas and skills that cannot be attributed to the individuals separately.” Some academic journals require a “statement of contribution” to indicate how much each author contributed to the research and writing.

So what does all this mean to the recent PhD recipient who is looking for a postdoctoral career position?

Publishing Can Be Difficult

According to the American Psychological Association, the rejection rate for their various journals in 2013 was between 70 and 90 percent. At Elsevier , one of the world’s largest academic publishers, “between 30 percent to 50 percent of articles don’t even make it to the peer review process.” This is especially discouraging to the PhD student who is near completion of his or her academic studies.

In addition to struggling with the reality of rejection rates, students often face struggles with advisors who are not willing to help. In a 2005 blog written in Science , a PhD candidate wrote about the difficulties he was having with his advisor, who had taken on new responsibilities and appeared to be less interested in helping him achieve his goals, especially those to get his research published. In response to this issue , Dr. Luis Echegoyen, a chemistry professor at the University of Texas, stated that advisors should help students in any way possible to get their research published. If anyone faces that kind of situation, it is reasonable for you to either submit the manuscript without the help of your advisor or present your case to his or her superiors.

Related: Does your dream job seem more like a dream? Check out this post to jump-start your career now!

Remember that your future might depend on this collaboration, whether publishing or other support and this should be taken seriously.

So Is Publishing Important?

Some believe that your publication record will be your greatest asset when applying for postdoctoral positions because it is a testament to your ability to effectively and correctly create and carry out a study. Some disciplines even require that a specific number of first-author papers be published before you apply for a position. For example, according to Dr. Robert Ross, a panelist at the seminar entitled “Life after the PhD: Finding the Right Postdoctoral Position,” in psychology, prospective universities look for applicants who have published at least 10 papers, although it is not a requirement that the applicant is listed as the first author. According to an article in Neurowire , the Scientifica blog site, you should “publish as much of your PhD work as possible and offer to help on other projects during your PhD to get your name on the paper and gain valuable experience.”

In the science disciplines, in particular, your recognition as a major contributor to a study is a good way to catch the attention of prestigious labs to which you are applying. Some use this information upfront, especially the first author designation, to “weed out applicants, looking for at least one first-author paper to signify that a junior scientist can complete a project from start to finish”; however, this is not always the case, so if you have not published, don’t be discouraged—there are also other characteristics that employers look for in a candidate.

In Lieu of Publishing, What Can You Do?

So, is publishing important? Absolutely! Is it necessary to land a job after receiving your PhD? No! When applying for a postdoctoral position, whether a postdoc research job or postdoc academic career, there are several dos and don’ts. In a 2010 article written by Kendall Powell, a freelance writer, and published in Nature entitled “A foot in the door,” a “postdoctoral application should present a person’s best scientific self on paper.” Information on all your important research and a personalized cover letter will help ensure that you are granted a review and possibly an interview.

Another huge advantage is previous funding. Be sure to mention that you have had funding for your research. According to Phil Baran, an organic chemist at the Scripps Research Institute, “If a postdoc has their own fellowship, they can write their application to me in crayon and I’ll take them.” If you have not been funded for your research, be sure to mention to which postdoctoral fellowships or funding sources you intend to apply.

Keep in mind the following points to consider when searching for your first postdoctoral position or career job:

• Start searching early; don’t wait until you receive your PhD.
• Network with senior scientists and attend seminars, lectures, and conferences in your field.
• Read several research papers by those at your prospective place of employment.
• Know your goals and strengths and narrow your postdoc application to those positions/openings that meet them, including personnel.
• Be prepared by knowing all you can about the position and/or lab.
• Avoid negative remarks about your past or your experiences.
• Research other employment opportunities besides a career in academia, such as private postdoctoral researcher jobs or other fields that could use your analytical skills.

In your application, highlight what you hope to accomplish in the right postdoctoral position for which you are applying. State your accomplishments in the field but avoid specific details. Personalize your letters to the prospective reviewer or interviewer and, by all means, state how your experience sets you apart from other applicants for postdoctoral jobs.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Manuscripts & Grants
• Reporting Research

Mastering Research Grant Writing in 2024: Navigating new policies and funder demands

Entering the world of grants and government funding can leave you confused; especially when trying…

• Career Corner

How to Create a Poster That Stands Out: Tips for a smooth poster presentation

It was the conference season. Judy was excited to present her first poster! She had…

Academic Essay Writing Made Simple: 4 types and tips

The pen is mightier than the sword, they say, and nowhere is this more evident…

Ensuring Academic Integrity and Transparency in Academic Research: A comprehensive checklist for researchers

Academic integrity is the foundation upon which the credibility and value of scientific findings are…

• AI in Academia

AI vs. AI: How to detect image manipulation and avoid academic misconduct

The scientific community is facing a new frontier of controversy as artificial intelligence (AI) is…

Recognizing the Signs: A guide to overcoming academic burnout

7 Steps of Writing an Excellent Academic Book Chapter

When Your Thesis Advisor Asks You to Quit

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

In your opinion, what is the most effective way to improve integrity in the peer review process?

• Publishing Your First Paper
• Doing a PhD

As a first-year PhD student, publishing your first paper may seem like a difficult task, but it doesn’t have to be; many will have published at least one peer-reviewed paper by the time of their viva. In Finland, students need to have published at least three papers before they can be awarded a PhD!

Here are a few tips from us to think about when you’re ready to write that first paper:

1. Tell a Story

Think of your paper as a story you’re telling to your readers. Introduce them to the subject, explain what others have already done and where the gaps in the knowledge were; what were your motivations for the study (i.e. the aims and objectives)?

Then tell the reader what you did and what you found – how did this add to the gaps in the knowledge and what should future work investigate? Conclude by summing up with the key messages you want people to take away from your paper.

2. Get the First Draft Early

With the specific layout/formatting requirements of the journal in mind, we think it’s a good idea to get the first draft of your manuscript written as soon as you can. Yes, it’ll be rough around the edges and there’re likely to be sections you’ll end up completely re-writing or removing altogether. But it can be so valuable getting your thoughts written down whilst they’re still fresh in your mind; the process of editing with your co-authors will begin afterwards and it’s so much easier to edit actual words rather than concepts still in your mind.

3. Pick the Right Journal

Everyone would love all their papers to be published in the highest impact journals in their field but this is where you need to evaluate your work objectively and decide (1) is your work within the scope of the journal you’re looking at and (2) is the quality and impact of your work at the level appropriate for the journal. This is not to say that you shouldn’t aim for high impact journals but that it’s ok if your first paper isn’t accepted by Nature!

4. Get the Figures Right

When reading papers, it’s not unusual for someone to skip read the abstract then skip straight to the results. Including good figures that explain your key results can make understanding your work that much easier. Make sure you get the basics right – simple figure legends, clear text and everything labelled!

5. Don’t Give Up!

Publishing a paper is not an easy task. Don’t be disheartened if you don’t get your paper accepted on the first time of trying. Most good journals will ensure that their reviewers offer constructive comments on the strengths and weaknesses of the study and how it may be improved. Sometimes the editor will invite you to address these comments and resubmit to the journal for a second review; even if you are not invited to resubmit, consider addressing reviewer comments as you prepare to submit your work to a different journal – hopefully, this will lead to a stronger paper.

Browse PhDs Now

Join thousands of students.

Join thousands of other students and stay up to date with the latest PhD programmes, funding opportunities and advice.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Guiding Undergraduates Through the Process of First Authorship

Introduction.

Dozens of excellent papers have recently been written that describe best practices for publishing journal articles with undergraduates (see “Engaging Undergraduates in Publishable Research: Best Practices,” Frontiers in Psychology ); for the most part, these involve students as co-authors in general rather than as lead authors. In this paper, I specifically focus on how to guide undergraduates through the process of first authorship. After describing potential barriers, I discuss issues of authorship contribution before outlining several successful strategies I've developed during my 24 years of collaborating with undergraduates. Although mentoring students to be first authors can be challenging, the rewards can also be immense—for both the students and the faculty mentors who are up to the challenge.

The Undergraduate First Author: a Unicorn?

A literature search revealed not a single article on the topic of undergraduates publishing as first author. Without any data, it's hard to know for certain how common it is for undergraduates to publish as first authors, but informal discussions with psychology colleagues around the world who collaborate with undergraduates (and examinations of faculty vitae) suggest that it is far less common than undergraduates publishing as non-lead authors.

Barriers (Real or Perceived) to Undergraduate First Authorship

Because it is rare to see undergraduate first authors, many faculty are likely unaware that at least some undergraduates can—with proper training, encouragement, and careful mentoring—be capable of serving as first authors on papers in refereed journals. Even if faculty members are made aware of this fact (as I hope to accomplish with this article), other barriers exist. For example, many faculty work under a reward system in which publications (and first author publications in particular) determine tenure, promotion, pay, likelihood of securing grants, and job security (e.g., Costa and Gatz, 1992 ; Fine and Kurdek, 1993 ; Wilcox, 1998 ). The primary tradeoff is that the time it takes to mentor undergraduates through first authorship is generally much longer than the time it would take for the faculty member to be the lead author. The great experience provided to the student (see Matthews and Rosa, 2018 ), therefore, can come at the cost of decreased productivity (e.g., fewer publications overall, fewer first author publications, publications in lower-tier journals), which could be problematic for faculty at institutions that don't highly value faculty-undergraduate research. Finally, recent trends in psychological science, such as the difficulty of publishing single-study papers in some subfields and the “open science” movement calling for large sample sizes, pre-registration, and replication (see Chambers, 2017 ; Nelson et al., 2018 ) can seem like roadblocks to publishing with undergraduates. Fortunately, faculty from diverse subfields have come up with creative solutions involving high-quality replications (e.g., McKelvie and Standing, 2018 ; Wagge et al., 2019 ), preregistered projects (e.g., Strand and Brown, 2019 ), large-scale single-experiment class projects designed for publication (e.g., LoSchiavo, 2018 ; Mickley Steinmetz and Reid, 2019 ), and multi-study projects involving student coauthors across years (e.g., Grysman and Lodi-Smith, 2019 ; Holmes and Roberts, 2019 ).

Authorship Contribution and Order of Authorship

Much has been written about the ethics of assigning authorship credit in the sciences and social sciences (see Maurer, 2017 , for a review), and attempts have been made to fairly determine authorship order by (a) surveying past authors about their experiences (e.g., Wagner et al., 1994 ; Sandler and Russell, 2005 ; Moore and Griffin, 2006 ; Geelhoed et al., 2007 ), (b) assessing reactions to hypothetical authorship scenarios (e.g., Costa and Gatz, 1992 ; Bartle et al., 2000 ; Apgar and Congress, 2005 ), (c) proposing step-by-step decision-making models (Fine and Kurdek, 1993 ; Foster and Ray, 2012 ; Maurer, 2017 ), and (d) outlining quantitative systems that assign weighted points to tasks associated with publishing (e.g., Winston, 1985 ; Kosslyn, 2015 ). The consensus seems to be that writing the manuscript is either the most important factor in determining first authorship (e.g., Winston, 1985 ; Bartle et al., 2000 ; Apgar and Congress, 2005 ) or at least tied with idea origination as the most important factor (Wagner et al., 1994 ; Kosslyn, 2015 ). The “authorship determination scorecard” on the American Psychological Association's website ( https://www.apa.org/science/leadership/students/authorship-paper.aspx ), for example, allots 170 of 1,040 points (16%) for idea generation/refinement; 110 points (11%) for design/measures; 160 points (15%) for statistical analysis, and 600 points (58%) for writing/revision.

Given the clear importance of writing as a factor in first authorship, and because students' contributions to idea generation, design, and analysis are often similar to those of their collaborators up to this point, I always require students to take responsibility for the manuscript drafts and revisions (with my feedback and editing help) to earn their first authorship. I am typically second author (consistent with the “order of contribution” norm in social psychology) because I play a significant role in the publication process, but less than the first author. The remaining student authors tend to be less involved (consistent with Geelhoed et al., 2007 ) because of lack of time or interest, or geographical distance. Nonetheless, all authors are always asked to read and approve the final manuscript before submission.

Paths to Undergraduate First Authorship

My mentor, the late Dan Wegner (a social psychologist who ended his career at Harvard but started at a small liberal arts university doing research with undergraduates) advised me as I began my career at an undergraduate-only institution that “the best undergraduates are often better than graduate students” because they are “not only very bright, but often are more intrinsically motivated—if you hold them to high standards, they will meet or exceed them, and you can publish great work with them.” I followed his advice, and indeed have published the vast majority of my papers with undergraduates as co-authors, and especially as first authors: Of my 33 post-graduate school publications, 29 papers involve a total of 68 undergraduate co-authors, and 24 of the 29 are first-authored by undergraduates 1 .

In my experience, there have been three primary paths to undergraduate first authorship, each representing approximately one-third of my publications with students. First, during our one-semester research methods course with a lab (capped at 12 students), sophomores and sometimes juniors complete two original projects and manuscript write-ups, and conducting high quality, original projects is a big factor (see LoSchiavo, 2018 ); about 10% of my class projects lead to publication. Second, each faculty member has a capstone course in which they work with 5 to 6 seniors (or sometimes juniors) for two consecutive semesters; about 90% of my capstone projects lead to publication 2 . Third, I occasionally accept projects for individual honors theses or independent studies (independent research outside of capstone is rare in our department, perhaps one senior every several years) if I think they are publishable; about 90% of these projects lead to publication.

Best Practices

Here are some of the strategies I've developed over the years to successfully mentor students to first authorship:

• Provide good writing instruction throughout the curriculum . It is crucial to teach good writing skills throughout the curriculum (Soysa et al., 2013 ) so that the largest number of students possible has a strong background and the potential capacity to be first author. (My university has 1,400 students, and we graduate 25–30 psychology majors annually, so with 4–5 faculty members striving to publish with students each year, this step is crucial). Our department places a strong emphasis on students learning APA style as well as proper grammar (see Giuliano, 2019 ), and all instructors provide copious feedback on student drafts. Although group writing is popular elsewhere (e.g., small groups of students who write APA-style papers together on their research methods project), instructors in our department require individual writing (as well as peer review) in both research methods and capstone courses so that every student improves and gets the maximum amoun of practice.
• Select the most “first-author-ready” students . I've found that it is important to select students with certain characteristics—those who not only have the strongest writing skills, but who are hardworking, independent, intellectually curious, and intrinsically motivated 3 . The process starts when I read a paper (e.g., a research methods final paper, a senior capstone paper, or an honors thesis) that has good results, that is “close enough” that I can envision grooming it into a publishable paper, and that has been written by a student with the characteristics described above.
• Explain what authorship entails . At that point, I ask the student if she or he would like to first author a publication under my supervision (Virtually every invitee will have already first-authored a conference presentation with me, so I know that we are a “good fit” and that they know exactly what to expect when working with me.). As recommended by Foster and Ray ( 2012 ), I explain which contributions determine first authorship: I tell them they have already earned authorship by making significant contributions in the idea, design, and analysis stages, as have their student collaborators, so they will earn first authorship by being responsible for writing the manuscript, with plenty of feedback and supervision from me. To provide “informed consent” about this decision (Fine and Kurdek, 1993 ), I outline clear expectations (i.e., that they can expect to write 10–15 drafts or more over a period of several months, that this will be a much higher standard of writing than they have ever done in the past, and that at times this process could get frustrating and tedious) and let them know that they are free to accept or decline without any adverse consequences (about 95% of students accept). I also tell them that first authorship is not guaranteed and that authorship order may need to be revised if contributions change (Only once or twice in 24 years has first authorship changed; my students have generally been excellent at following through with their commitments.).
• Get them ready to write . Once students agree to be first author, the next step is to provide them with exemplar articles (I use past publications from my own students). I then set an initial calendar of deadlines (e.g., when their drafts are due to me, when my feedback is due to them); I usually draft this first and then allow students to make modifications according to their schedule. Finally, I have students research and take notes on potential target journals (we then discuss the pros and cons together and decide where to send the paper once finished).
• Find time to write . Finding time to write can be tricky, because students are often either busy with other courses or have moved on to jobs or graduate school. Summers are usually optimal for both students and me. For research methods class projects, I usually suggest writing during the summer after the course is over (setting the final deadline before the new semester starts). If students are in town, we meet in person occasionally but generally trade drafts over email and have in-person or by-phone meetings when necessary. Writing with students who have graduated is often more difficult because those with jobs are busy working during the day and no longer in “academic mode,” so I find that it takes more patience and encouragement to get them back into the writing. If they are in graduate school, they are already immersed in research, which is helpful, but projects with their graduate advisor compete for their attention. Students who have graduated are also more likely to be out of town, which is only a problem if in-person meetings (e.g., to re-analyze data) are necessary, although online meeting applications (e.g., Facetime, Skype) work fine. Ultimately, it may take some creativity to find the time and space for writing, as in “writing weekends” (see Scherman, under review), but in the end, it is worth it.

Publishing with students is truly my favorite part of being a professor—the thrill I get upon seeing a student's name in print (especially in the lead position) is often greater than the thrill I get from seeing my own name. As others have argued (e.g., Malachowski, 2012 ; Maurer, 2017 ), when working with students, it is best to treat them as equals and true partners in the collaboration process, with high levels of autonomy and a strong focus on student learning. In doing so, the rewards—for both students and faculty alike—are incredibly worthwhile.

Author Contributions

The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

I'd like to thank Sarah Matthews, Carin Perilloux, Abby Riggs, Marissa Rosa, and Toni Wegner for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

1 Four are in the Psi Chi Journal of Undergraduate Research ; the remainder are in professional, peer-reviewed journals.

2 It should be noted that our department recently switched from an informal system in which either faculty or students approached the other about the possibility of research collaboration to a more formal capstone assignment process in which all students (during their required research methods course) complete a written application describing their interest in conducting a research-based capstone and rank their preference for faculty labs. This process not only improved transparency, but also provided more equitable information, access, and opportunity for all students, who are assigned to labs by fit and interest. Recent articles have addressed both the benefits of increasing diversity and inclusion in undergraduate research and publication (e.g., Peifer, 2019 ) and specific strategies for doing so (e.g., Ahmad et al., under review; Chan, 2019 ; Scisco et al., 2019 ) and are highly recommended.

3 Approximately half of my first authors went on to Ph.D. programs in psychology; the other half went to law school, medical school, master's programs, or did not seek a graduate degree.

Undergraduate * First-Author Publications

* Butterworth, S. E., Giuliano, T. A., * White, J. R., * Cantu, L., & * Fraser, K. C. (In Press). Is he flirting with me? How sender gender influences emoji interpretation. Frontiers in Psychology .

* Matthews, S. J., Giuliano, T. A., * Rosa, M. N., * Thomas, K. H., * Swift, B. A., * Ahearn, N. D., * Garcia, A. G., * Smith, S. R., * Niblett, C. M., & * Mills, M. M. (2018). The battle against bedroom boredom: Development and validation of a brief measure of sexual novelty in relationships. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 27 , 277-287.

* Matthews, S. J., Giuliano, T. A., * Thomas, K. H., * Straup, M. L., & * Martinez, M. A. (2018). Not cool, dude: Perceptions of solicited vs. unsolicited sext messages from men and women. Computers in Human Behavior, 88 , 1-4. 10.1016/j.chb.2018.06.14

* Matthews, S. J., Giuliano, T. A., * Rosa, M. N., * Thomas, K. H., & * Swift, B. A. (2018). Sexual Novelty Scale. Handbook of Sexuality-Related Measures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

* Hutzler, K. T., Giuliano, T. A, * Herselman, J. R., & * Johnson, S. M. (2015). Three's a crowd: Public awareness and (mis)perceptions of polyamory. Psychology & Sexuality, 7 , 69-87. 10.1080/19419899.2015.1004102

* Johnson, S. M., Giuliano, T. A, * Herselman, J. R., & * Hutzler, K. T. (2015). Development of a brief measure of attitudes towards polyamory. Psychology & Sexuality, 6 , 325-339. 10.1080/19419899.2014.1001774

* Blomquist, B.A., & Giuliano, T. A. (2012). “Do you love me, too?” Perceptions of Responses to ‘I love you.” North American Journal of Psychology, 14 , 407-418.

* Gomillion, S. C., & Giuliano, T. A. (2011). The influence of media role models on gay, lesbian, and bisexual identity. Journal of Homosexuality, 58 , 330-354.

* Howell, J., * & Giuliano, T. A. (2011). The effects of expletive use and team gender on perceptions of coaching effectiveness. Journal of Sport Behavior, 34 , 69-81.

* Howell, J., * Egan, P., * Ackley, B., & Giuliano, T. A. (2011). The reverse double standard in perceptions of student-teacher sexual relationships: The role of gender, initiation, and power. Journal of Social Psychology, 151 (2), 180-200.

* Egan, P., & Giuliano, T. A. (2009). Unaccommodating attitudes: Perceptions of students with learning disabilities as a function of accommodation use and test performance. North American Journal of Psychology, 11 , 487-500.

* Osborne, R. L, * Ackley B. D, & Giuliano, T. A., (2008). The “skinny” on coffee drinkers: Gender differences in healthy beverage choice. Psi Chi Journal of Undergraduate Research, 13(4) , 159-163.

* Riggs, A. L., & Giuliano, T. A. (2007). Running in the family or swimming in the gene pool: The role of family history and genetic risk in individuals' illness perceptions. Journal of Health Psychology, 12 , 883-894.

* Stanzer, M., Guarraci, F., Giuliano, T. A., & Sims, A. (2007). Paramedic or EMT-basic partner? Study evaluates preferred partner types & the effect of partners on work-related stress levels. Journal of Emergency Medical Services 32: 72-74.

* Knight, J. L., & Giuliano, T. A. (2003). Blood, sweat, and jeers: The impact of the media's heterosexist portrayals on perceptions of male and female athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 26 , 272-284.

* Wilke, K. M., * Turner, K. L., & Giuliano, T. A. (2003). Smoke screens: Cross-cultural effectiveness of anti-smoking messages. North American Journal of Psychology, 5 , 431-442.

* Dodd E. H., Giuliano, T. A., * Boutell, J. M., & * Moran, B. E. (2001). Respected or rejected: Perceptions of women who confront sexist remarks. Sex Roles , 45, 567-577.

* Knight, J. L., & Giuliano, T. A. (2001). She's a “looker;” he's a Laker: The consequences of gender-stereotypical portrayals of male and female athletes by the print media. Sex Roles, 45 , 217-229.

* Knight, J. L., Giuliano, T. A., & * Sanchez-Ross, M. G. (2001). Famous or infamous? The influence of celebrity status and race on perceptions of responsibility for rape. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 23 , 183-190.

* Dickson, A., Giuliano, T. A., * Morris, J. C., & * Cass, K. L. (2001). Eminem versus Charley Pride: Race, stereotypes, and perceptions of rap and country music performers. Psi Chi Journal of Undergraduate Research, 6 , 175-179.

* Kirkendall, K. D., * Dixon, D. P., Giuliano, T. A., & * Raney, A. E. (2001). The bold and the beautiful: The effect of physical attractiveness and extraversion on desirability. Psi Chi Journal of Undergraduate Research, 6 , 180-186.

* Cohorn, C. A., & Giuliano, T. A. (1999). Predictors of adjustment and institutional attachment in first-year college students. Psi Chi Journal of Undergraduate Research, 4 , 47-56.

* Cox, C. B., & Giuliano, T. A. (1999). Constructing obstacles vs. making excuses: Examining perceivers' reactions to behavioral and self-reported self-handicapping. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,14 , 419-432.

* Fiala, S. E., Giuliano, T. A., * Remlinger, N. M., & * Braithwaite, L. C. (1999). Lending a helping hand: The effects of sex stereotypes and gender on likelihood of helping. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29 , 2164-2176.

• Apgar D., Congress E. (2005). Authorship credit: a national study of social work educators' beliefs . J. Soc. Work Educ. 41 , 101–112. 10.5175/JSWE.2005.200300356 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bartle S. A., Fink A. A., Hayes B. C. (2000). Psychology of the scientist: LXXX. Attitudes regarding authorship issues in psychological publications . Psychol. Rep. 86 , 771–788. 10.2466/pr0.2000.86.3.771 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chambers C. D. (2017). The Seven Deadly Sins of Psychology: A Manifesto for Reforming the Culture of Scientific Practice . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chan E. (2019). Student research and publication: strategic planning for inclusion using a systems mapping approach . Front. Psychol. 10 :6. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00006 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Costa M. M., Gatz M. (1992). Determination of authorship credit in published dissertations . Psychol. Sci. 3 , 354–357. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00046.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fine M. A., Kurdek L. A. (1993). Reflections on determining authorship credit and authorship order on faculty-student collaborations . Am. Psychol. 48 , 1141–1147. 10.1037/0003-066X.48.11.1141 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Foster R. D., Ray D. C. (2012). An ethical decision-making model to determine authorship credit in published faculty-student collaborations . Counsel. Values 57 , 214–228 10.1002/j.2161-007X.2012.00018.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Geelhoed R. J., Phillips J. C., Rischer A. R., Shpungin E., Gong Y. (2007). Authorship decision making: an empirical investigation . Ethics Behav. 17 , 95–115. 10.1080/10508420701378057 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Giuliano T. (2019). The “Writing Spiral”: A handy tool for training undergraduates to write publishable-quality manuscripts . Front. Educ . 10 :915 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00915 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grysman A., Lodi-Smith J. (2019). Methods for conducting and publishing narrative research with undergraduates . Front. Psychol. 9 :2771. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02771 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Holmes K. J., Roberts T. (2019). Mentor as sculptor, makeover artist, coach or CEO: evaluating contrasting models for mentoring undergraduates mesearch toward publishable research . Front. Psychol. 10 :231. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00231 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kosslyn S. M. (2015). Authorship: credit where credit is due , in Ethical Challenges in the Behavioral and Brain Sciences: Case Studies and Commentaries , eds Sternberg R. J., Fiske S. T. (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; ), 50–52. 10.1017/CBO9781139626491.021 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• LoSchiavo F. M. (2018). Incorporating a professional-grade all-class project into a research methods course . Front. Psychol. 9 :2143. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02143 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Malachowski M. R. (2012). Living in parallel universes: the great faculty divide between product-oriented and process-oriented scholarship , in Faculty Support and Undergraduate Research: Innovations in Faculty Role Definition, Workload, and Reward , eds Hensel N. H., Paul E. L. (Washington, DC: Council on Undergraduate Research; ), 7–18. [ Google Scholar ]
• Matthews S. J., Rosa M. N. (2018). Trials, tribulations, and triumphs: research and publishing from the undergraduate perspective . Front. Psychol. 9 :2411. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02411 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maurer T. (2017). Guidelines for authorship credit, order, and co-inquireer learning in collaborative faculty-student SoTL projects . Teach. Learn. Inquiry 5 , 1–17. 10.20343/teachlearninqu.5.1.9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McKelvie S., Standing L. G. (2018). Teaching psychology research methodology across the curriculum to promote undergraduate publication: an eight-course structure and two helpful practices . Front. Psychol. 9 :2295. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02295 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mickley Steinmetz K. R., Reid A. K. (2019). Providing outstanding undergraduate research experiences and sustainable faculty development in load . Front. Psychol. 10 :196. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00196 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moore M. T., Griffin B. W. (2006). Identification of factors that influence authorship name placement and decision to collaborate in peer-reviewed, education-related publications . Stud. Educ. Eval. 32 , 125–135. 10.1016/j.stueduc.2006.04.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nelson L. D., Simmons J., Simonsohn U. (2018). Psychology's renaissance . Annual Rev. Psychol. 69 , 511–534. 10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011836 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peifer J. S. (2019). Context and reasons for bolstering diversity in undergraduate research . Front. Psychol. 10 :336. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00336 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandler J. C., Russell B. L. (2005). Faculty-student collaborations: ethics and satisfaction in authorship credit . Ethics Behav. 15 , 65–80. 10.1207/s15327019eb1501_5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Scisco J. L., McCabe J. A., Mendoza A. T. O., Fallong M., Domenech Rodriquez M. M. (2019). Strategies for selecting, managing, and engaging undergraduate co-authors: a multi-site perspective . Front. Psychol. 10 :325 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00325 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Soysa C. K., Dunn D. S., Dottolo A. L., Burns-Glover A. L., Gurung R. A. R. (2013). Orchestrating authorship: teaching writing across the psychology curriculum . Teach. Psychol. 40 , 88–97. 10.1177/0098628312475027 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Strand J. F., Brown V. A. (2019). Publishing open, reproducible research with undergraduates . Front. Psychol. 10 :564. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00564 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagge J. R., Brandt M. J., Lazarevic L. B., Legate N., Christopherson C., Wiggins B., et al. (2019). Publishing research with undergraduate students via replication work: the collaborative replications and extensions project . Front. Psychol. 10 :247 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00247 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner M. K., Dodds A., Bundy M. B. (1994). Psychology of the scientist: LXVII. Assignment of authorship credit in psychological research . Psychol. Rep. 74 , 179–187. 10.2466/pr0.1994.74.1.179 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilcox L. J. (1998). Authorship: the coin of the realm, the source of complaints . J. Am. Med. Assoc. 280 , 216–217. 10.1001/jama.280.3.216 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Winston R. B., Jr. (1985). A suggested procedure for determining order of authorship in research publications . J. Counsel. Dev. 63 , 515–518. 10.1002/j.1556-6676.1985.tb02749.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Logo Left Content

Logo Right Content

Stanford University School of Medicine blog

Who’s on first? Duking out scientific paper authorship order

It's been over 80 years, but Abbott and Costello's famous comedic skit " Who's on First" lives on in our collective memories. Their increasingly ridiculous conversation about baseball and the name of the player on first base can still reliably produce a giggle in many circles.

But in the lab , questions about order can be anything but a laughing matter -- particularly when it comes to the list of authors on a scientific paper. Many nonscientists don't realize that, traditionally, the most important places on the roster are the first -- indicating the person who conceived of and performed most of the research discussed in the paper -- and the last -- a hallowed place reserved for the senior scientist in whose laboratory the research was conducted.

In the biomedical research world, having many "first authorship" papers is largely seen as an indication of a scientist's skill and tenacity; researchers with many "senior authorship" papers often garner a reputation of strong leadership and high productivity.

But as the National Institutes of Health and other funders increasingly reward collaborative research, and scientific projects grow more complex, determining authorship order is becoming less clear. Some are even venturing outside the lab to do so.

Authorship smash down

Recently Stanford researcher Garry Nolan , PhD, tweeted about an unconventional way two researchers in his laboratory who had each contributed equally to a study decided who should be listed first on the print version of the paper.

The researchers, graduate students Bokai Zhu and Yunhao Bai , played three games of Mario Kart's Super Smash Bros. ; the winner, Bai, was awarded top billing, and was permitted to list himself as the first author on his resume (called a curriculum vitae , or CV, in science circles). A footnote to the authorship list notes that Zhu and Bai contributed equally to the paper's contents and can consider themselves co-first authors on their CVs.

"All the important results are already in the paper itself . We thought, why not use this opportunity to have some fun?" Zhu said, in a recent conversation with my colleague Lisa Kim for her new video series " 90 seconds with Lisa Kim ."

"As science has become more multidisciplinary and collaborative, it becomes more difficult to determine who should receive credit for a group's findings," Nolan said. "It's not unusual for a scientific paper to have a dozen or more authors from multiple labs or institutions, and assigning authorship order becomes increasingly difficult."

In response, scientists like Zhu and Bai are becoming more creative. As on their paper, footnotes are increasingly used in print or online versions of a study to indicate authors (both first and last) who contributed equally to the paper's findings. "There's also a movement toward agreeing that each co-first or co-last author may list themselves as first or last author on their own CV," Nolan said.

Agreeing to ... agree

But as long as the "first or last" rubric remains, researchers are going to have to come to ways to agree. Much hinges on the ability of the authors to collaboratively decide whose careers could benefit the most from the extra boost. Sometimes that might mean that a lab leader cedes last authorship to a senior lab member who will soon be launching a job hunt, or for a postdoctoral researcher to allow a soon-to-graduate PhD student to list themselves first.

"To me, a key purpose of an academic institution is to advance the careers of your students, teach them the ways of science, and hopefully impart some wisdom while also doing important scientific work," Nolan said. "If a funding institution is going to demand cooperation and collaboration, we as scientists need to adapt. Right now, it depends on people being gracious."

Or, perhaps, a friendly video game smackdown? Maybe next time they'll play Mario Super Sluggers , instead!

Photo by  Ryan Quintal

Popular posts

Talking about the need for Stanford Medicine’s new Skin of Color program

How the tobacco industry began funding courses for doctors

• Communities Pre-Med Medical Resident Audiology Dental Optometry Pharmacy Physical Therapy Podiatry Psychology Rehab Sci Veterinary
• What's new Trending New posts Latest activity
• Support Account Help Confidential Advising
• Vision, Values and Policies
• Medical Student Communities
• Medical Students (MD)

How important is first author on papers vs being second author on papers?

• Thread starter CuriousMDStudent
• Start date Aug 19, 2021

CuriousMDStudent

Full member.

• Aug 19, 2021

42% Full Member

I don't think anyone really cares (because pub count is much more important) but if you really want a first author paper, you need to talk to your PI in advance  

deleted50541

The number of publications is going to look more impressive compared to having fewer but you're first author. It's not going to look bad on your application. Generally, if you do the majority of the work (background research, collecting the data, analyzing it, and writing/editing the manuscript), then you get to be first author. There's nothing wrong with having residents/fellows help you. But you need to have clear expectations set when starting a project on how much work you will be doing and if that's enough to be considered for first author.  

srirachamayonnaise

Membership revoked.

• Aug 20, 2021

You need a couple of first author papers to just show that you can lead a project. After that, you can basically disregard that.  

There’s a huge difference between the two. At the faculty level, usually only first and last author papers even count toward promotion requirements. It means a lot. What it tells programs is that you know how to move a project from A to Z. More academic programs look favorably on this because it means you can be productive without them having to teach you the basics. You get first author pubs by discussing authorship in advance. You may still have help from residents and fellows, but it would be known in advance to be your project. The residents and fellows definitely had the authorship talk when starting the project and they frequently look to students to do the grunt work in exchange for middle authorship. This is fine in the beginning as you learn, but ideally you would progress toward taking charge of small projects of your own.  

SurfingDoctor

"good news, everyone".

1st author > 2nd author >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing.  

SurfingDoctor said: 1st author > 2nd author >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing. Click to expand...

hebrewBAMmer

I think people have a tendency to severely overstate the importance of authorship order. Is it nice to be first author? Absolutely. Will it make or break a residency application? I sincerely doubt it  

Lawpy said: How do co-first authors and co-second authors fare in your ranking? Click to expand...

Osaka, Japan

• Aug 21, 2021

CuriousMDStudent said: Title sums it up. It looks like I've been accruing 2nd author opportunities throughout medical school so far and have not achieved the chance of getting first author. To be fair, I am inexperienced and have had residents/fellows guiding me but I've been doing the grunt work. Is the key to getting first author on papers by taking charge of a project from the start and not getting help from residents/fellows? Also would it look bad if I wasn't first author on paper when I apply to residency? I have one project that will take a while to become first author but I don't know. Click to expand...

As a student you don’t get to be second author without putting in a decent amount of work. I personally put students as first if they’ve done a lot of the leg work (making tables, collecting data) even if I do the actual analysis and write most of the paper. But I usually don’t have fellows or residents on those papers. For papers going into prominent journals with high impact unless student did the vast amount of work and is PI in all but name they will not be first or maybe even second author, but if you’re on that paper it does imply you did lots of work. I don’t think many programs expect students to be first author.  

Thank You for Smoking

As others have mentioned, as a medical student - particularly if you're someone that isn't interested in primarily doing research - any publication is gravy, and first vs. second author isn't going to matter. If you're planning on being a clinical researcher and are going to apply to or look for residency positions with a research focus, then it might make a difference there.  

Datypicalpremed

Feed me seymour.

Guess I’ll weigh in since I had a discussion about this with my school’s faculty a while ago. overall impression I got from an academic science perspective (and thus probably in line with academic medicine) is that 1st author > 1st coauthor (aka A and B contributed equally) >> 2nd or coauthor. Having said that, I would say unless you are applying to a research track residency program, stand out at a top program (which tend to be at research heavy institutions and thus view applicants with a strong publication record more favorably), or applying to a field with strong emphasis on research (neurosurgery, rad onc, etc.), your time would almost certainly be better spent getting more coauthors than firsts. This is simply due to the sheer amount of time, effort, and LUCK needed to get a 1st author publication. You can rack up an insane amount of “research pubs” on ERAS just by contributing towards a publication. Some of my peers have gotten their names on papers just by spending a hour making graphs from data that has already been collected under the reasoning of “hey, I made a figure so I deserve some authorship.” Some have even gotten authorship for just proofreading. Makes me sad that I spent my PhD focusing on getting 1st author pubs and now some of my MD only peers have more overall publications than me 🥲  

Datypicalpremed said: Guess I’ll weigh in since I had a discussion about this with my school’s faculty a while ago. overall impression I got from an academic science perspective (and thus probably in line with academic medicine) is that 1st author > 1st coauthor (aka A and B contributed equally) >> 2nd or coauthor. Having said that, I would say unless you are applying to a research track residency program, stand out at a top program (which tend to be at research heavy institutions and thus view applicants with a strong publication record more favorably), or applying to a field with strong emphasis on research (neurosurgery, rad onc, etc.), your time would almost certainly be better spent getting more coauthors than firsts. This is simply due to the sheer amount of time, effort, and LUCK needed to get a 1st author publication. You can rack up an insane amount of “research pubs” on ERAS just by contributing towards a publication. Some of my peers have gotten their names on papers just by spending a hour making graphs from data that has already been collected under the reasoning of “hey, I made a figure so I deserve some authorship.” Some have even gotten authorship for just proofreading. Makes me sad that I spent my PhD focusing on getting 1st author pubs and now some of my MD only peers have more overall publications than me 🥲 Click to expand...

EdgeTrimmer

• Aug 22, 2021

Lawpy said: It's definitely possible to churn out middle author papers on the side while working on first author paper. Really the focus should not be on racking as many first authors as possible. That's a complete waste of time as a med student and even probably as a resident too. Click to expand...

EdgeTrimmer said: Does first author paper as an undergrad count for residency? Click to expand...

Redpancreas

• Aug 23, 2021

Great discussion here. I like all the points made and to synthesize if you're just learning and are at the medical student level it's probably not a big deal to have the second author but as you gain experience you'll likely want to upgrade.  

guytakingboards

• Aug 24, 2021

guytakingboards said: Don't agree that it'd be a complete waste of time. People can and do look critically at the publications list. Maybe not for the interview invite but when i interviewed resident applicants I definitely noticed if there were 1st author pubs sprinkled in and if they were articles of substance vs case reports. Click to expand...

SDN Chief Administrator

• Aug 25, 2021

Locking as this thread is more or less talking about the same issues being discussed here: I collected all of the data for a database and a fellow is guiding me through analyzing the data and write the paper. Would I still be 1st author? In general, first>second, but not so much that you need to get bent out of shape about it. First author should go to the author who contributed the most, not the person who "needs it."  

Similar threads

• and 99 others
• Apr 18, 2023

• Sep 20, 2023

• voxveritatisetlucis
• Oct 30, 2023
• Laura Turner
• May 2, 2024
• Oct 18, 2023
• This site uses cookies to help personalize content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register. By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies and terms of service . Accept Learn more…

The Ohio State University

• BuckeyeLink
• Search Ohio State

Brandi Wooten, PhD MSE 2024, transitions from doctoral student to career researcher with MAE

A new material for small electronics that gives batteries longer life, researchers hit milestones in pursuit of thin film conductor.

Scientists have achieved a series of milestones in growing a high-quality thin film conductor, suggesting in a new study that the material is a promising candidate platform for future wearable electronics and other miniature applications.

Researchers at The Ohio State University, the Army Research Laboratory and MIT determined that the material is the best among similarly built films for its electron mobility – an index of how easy it is for an electrical current to pass through it. Coupled with low defect density to reduce interference with electron movement on the surface, the material is like a tiny empty freeway where all the electrons can easily get where they need to go with no traffic to be seen.

“We redefined what a car on this highway does – it’s like a car that can go really fast without getting encumbered by other things on the road,” said first study author Patrick Taylor, a physicist at the Army Research Laboratory.

“Future generations of electronics will use that kind of technology because it’s low-power,” Taylor said. “The Army is interested in low power because they don’t want to give a soldier something that hogs their battery. On the flip side, the commercial sector is looking at this kind of technology for what happens after silicon, because silicon’s reaching the end of its road and there has to be something that follows it.”

The research team reported the findings recently in Materials Today Physics .

Co-lead author Brandi Wooten, a recent PhD graduate in materials science and engineering at Ohio State who is now a research technician in mechanical and aerospace engineering , noted that exhaustive testing of the materials produced another milestone: Researchers were able to detect elusive oscillations that confirmed the pristine films were nearly scatter-free – unlike their counterparts in nature.

“These materials, naturally speaking, just aren’t the best quality in terms of thin film growth, but we need thin films to make devices,” Wooten said. “This is a nice paper showing we can make these materials good enough in thin film form to be put into devices. This is a steppingstone to getting these materials to do more.”

Part of doing more would likely involve taking advantage of – and expanding upon – the films’ thermoelectric capabilities. Wooten, who interned at Taylor’s lab for two summers while pursuing her PhD, oversaw highly sensitive tests to gauge the thin films’ thermal properties for this study, and the team has already begun working on new versions of the films based on what she found.

Though military and commercial applications are years away, these films, consuming very little energy, could be integrated with the super-thin chips now fabricated for miniature electronics. Potential uses could include serving as a basic building block for the next generation of magnetic memory in computers or to generate energy that powers robots or drones – or even wearable devices that keep soldiers cool while they’re wearing heavy gear and bulletproof vests.

The thin films – between 90 and 150 nanometers thick – are refined versions of ternary tetradymite , a mineral consisting of bismuth, tellurium and sulfur. For about two decades, scientists have focused on perfecting tetradymite films because of their potential to function as topological insulators: materials in which electrical current flows on the surface while the interior acts as an insulator, reducing any dissipation of the surface flow. This surface conduction also has spin properties, which could open the door to spintronic devices that use very low levels of power.

To achieve those properties, Taylor built the thin films using a technique called molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) – starting with the same crystal structure as tetradymite, but substituting other elements to come up with two different compositions that feature separate conduction mechanisms.

Joseph Heremans , a co-lead author of the paper, helped guide the selection of elements to arrive at the best films. A professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering, materials science and engineering, and  physics  at Ohio State, Heremans advised Taylor to aim for equilibrium while composing the materials – not a typical characteristic of films made with the MBE process.

“That was his guiding light,” Taylor said. “We did try to target more equilibrium conditions, and it paid off – and so the material we have has unusually high mobility.”

The high electron mobility is enabled by growing films in a way that reduces the concentration of moving particles carrying an electric charge that exist in the interior of natural tetradymites, Wooten said.

“By lowering that carrier concentration, we can utilize these really strong and robust states on the surface,” she said. “In topological insulators, the current can go in one direction on the surface, but not the other. It can’t back-scatter, and that’s what makes them more robust.”

This work represented an advance in being able to not just build these films, but to test their properties in the lab – previously, materials made for lab study were much larger.

“Using this molecular beam epitaxy technique, we can now envision a pathway toward something that might fit in your computer or cell phone someday,” Taylor said.

This work was supported by the Department of Defense Basic Research Office, the Army Research Office, the National Science Foundation, the Office of Naval Research, the Canada Research Chairs Program and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

Additional co-authors were Owen Vail, Harry Hier and Hang Chi (now at the University of Ottawa) of the Army Research Lab and Jagadeesh Moodera of MIT.

• Share via Facebook (link opens in new window)
• Share via Twitter (link opens in new window)
• Share via LinkedIn (link opens in new window)

Related News

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• NEWS FEATURE
• 17 July 2024

The ‘PhD influencers’ logging lab life on TikTok and Instagram

• Carissa Wong

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Left to right: Ria Chopra, Ellie Hurer, Yasmin Meeda and Lindsay Ejoh have built followings on social media by posting about their PhDs. Adapted from Getty

In January 2023, Lindsay Ejoh posted a TikTok video of her work dissecting a frozen mouse brain. In it, the neuroscience PhD student uses a bladed machine to cut paper-thin tissue slices that she’ll later examine with a microscope. She also complains about the hour she spent trying to get the machine to work. The post racked up an impressive 5,000 views and dozens of comments. “What a cool life you lead,” wrote one user.

Ejoh, at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, is one of a growing number of PhD students building a following on social media by posting about their lives in research. Globally, an estimated 200 million people now consider themselves ‘content creators’ . But some graduate students are progressing to be ‘influencers’ — with large followings and, in some cases, brand partnerships that can earn them hundreds of dollars per post.

These PhD influencers post on Instagram and TikTok about their day-to-day struggles with graduate studies. They offer research tips, share protocols and build networks. Many also share their experiences as members of under-represented groups in science. “This is so important for expanding the public image and broadening public perceptions of who is a scientist,” says Jocelyn Steinke, who studies media portrayal of science at the University of Connecticut in Storrs.

But broadcasting a PhD comes with downsides. It can be time-consuming and elicit harsh comments about how people look or conduct themselves in the laboratory. A looming ban on TikTok in the United States is forcing some users to rethink their approach . Four influencers discussed their experiences with Nature .

Showcasing science on TikTok

Ejoh started using TikTok during the second year of her PhD. She enjoyed watching videos of others documenting their daily lives, she says. But she could see only a few people posting about life as a PhD scientist — and hardly any were Black women like her.

Lindsay Ejoh documents her life as a PhD student on TikTok and Instagram.

This prompted Ejoh to start her account @neuro_melody in 2021. “I thought it could be really cool to talk about what I do every day,” she says, and by doing so challenge stereotypes about who succeeds in science. Steinke says that, as well as striving to build a large community of followers, influencers typically distinguish themselves from other content creators by focusing “on one specific area of expertise”, such as fashion, sports or science. So far, Ejoh has gained more than 18,000 followers on TikTok and 53,000 on Instagram .

In one TikTok post, she suggests that PhD applicants can strengthen their applications by presenting undergraduate research data in conference posters. She also points to grants that people from under-represented groups in research can access. “Academia can be very gatekeeping,” says Ejoh. “The account is a nice way to share what I know about how to get in and how to thrive here.” Followers responded to the post positively. “You make me want to get a PhD so bad!!” read one comment.

Ejoh also posts about life outside work, such as a trip out of the city to pick apples with other graduate students. Some followers “are here because they’re interested in the brain and neuroscience and pain”, she says. “Others are interested in seeing a successful Black woman living her life and having fun.”

Ejoh has ambitions to build her following further and to become a principal investigator (PI). If TikTok is banned, she knows she’ll have to focus her efforts on Instagram. “I plan to post throughout my postdoc, I want to post about being a PI,” she says.

A lucrative biology Instagram feed

Since 2019, PhD student Yasmin Meeda has been approached by companies asking her to feature their brand on her booming Instagram feed. The marine microbiologist at the University of Exeter, UK, has gained more than 45,000 followers on her Instagram account @marinebiologywithyaz by posting about her PhD work on marine algae ( Phaeodactylum tricornutum ) and how it responds to changing environments. Now biotechnology firms, such as Thermo Fisher Scientific and Qiagen, and the media company BuzzFeed, pay her to feature their products in short videos, or reels.

PhD student Yasmin Meeda features biotechnology brands on her Instagram feed.

Advertising through influencers has become a huge market — estimated to be worth more than US$35 billion this year. In one reel that Meeda created jointly with Qiagen, she showcases a new kit for isolating bacterial DNA and says it generates less plastic and cardboard waste than an earlier version. She makes between £200 and £1,500 (US$255–1,900) per post, she says, which supplements the grant Meeda receives: “I’ve actually been able to save.”

Meeda didn’t set out to turn a profit from social media — she wanted to challenge the idea that some people are not smart enough to do a PhD. In one post about her final school assessments, she wrote, “11 years ago, I failed my A-level exams.” But she retook some of them and earned a place studying biology at the University of Brighton, UK, before proceeding to graduate studies. By posting about her experience, she hopes to show others that a PhD is achievable regardless of school performance and to better represent women in science.

Setting up brand partnerships has had other advantages for Meeda. It has helped to develop her negotiation skills, which, she thinks, could help her to discuss salaries in her future career. And she’s gained a better idea of what that might be. Either presenting TV documentaries on natural history or becoming a lecturer at a university “would suit me well”, she says.

The power of perseverance

When Ellie Hurer was around three years into her PhD, she started using Instagram to find researchers who were dealing with chronic illnesses and to post about her own. Hurer’s conditions include depression, anxiety, benign tumours and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. “On Instagram, I found so many people, PhD students and academics that were in a very similar situation to me,” she says.

Cancer researcher Ellie Hurer uses Instagram to show how people with disabilities can pursue research.

Hurer, who studies pancreatic cancer at the University of Hertfordshire in Hatfield, UK, uses her Instagram account @myphdexperience to show how people with disabilities can pursue research. She has more than 88,000 followers. “I want to prove to myself & others that even with chronic illnesses & disabilities, we can achieve anything if we just keep trying,” she says in a post that garnered more than 3,000 likes. A graduate student with chronic illness wrote in response: “It can feel so isolating and seeing you persevere makes it feel possible.”

Hurer also posted about suspending her PhD — for about three years in total — to undergo tumour surgeries and manage her mental health. “If suspending wasn’t an option, I probably would’ve had to quit,” she wrote in a step-by-step guide to taking time off . Her funding was paused and she lost a sense of purpose during her early time away, she wrote. “I wish I had looked after myself more.”

For Hurer, creating online content became a source of income, too. She has made reels featuring a figure-making tool made by the company Mind the Graph , and for BBC Bitesize — an online study resource for UK school children. She says a reel can take around ten hours to produce in collaboration with a company. “You get paid proportional to how much engagement you get and the number of followers you have,” she says — for her, about £1,500 per reel.

Hurer has faced drawbacks to being a PhD influencer. When her account hit around 20,000 followers, “I got a bit obsessive,” she says. “I was trying to post all the time and get the numbers up, and it became a bit unhealthy.” Now Hurer is more careful about how often she posts. She’s also dealt with negative comments about her appearance, which she handles by reporting and blocking the related accounts. “Maybe once in a blue moon, I’ll get a comment about my lip fillers,” she says. “These people would never say that to your face.”

Logging the 24-hour #PhDlife

In 2022, cancer biologist Ria Chopra posted a reel of herself working through the night in the lab. Chopra is studying how a disrupted body clock might accelerate the growth of cancer — work that involves monitoring the protein levels in cancer cells from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.. “I have to sleep in the lab and collect samples every four hours,” says Chopra, who studies at the Chinese University of Hong Kong .

Ria Chopra, a cancer biologist, posts on Instagram about her PhD studies in Hong Kong.

Chopra has gained more than 15,000 followers on Instagram partly by posting such nitty-gritty scenes of lab life: one post shows her collecting prostate cancer cells from storage in liquid nitrogen, staining them with a bright green fluorescent marker and placing the samples in a −80 °C freezer. She sets most of her reels to dance music — a nod to her other passion and inspiration for her Instagram username @phdwhodances.

Chopra was one of the first PhD influencers to post about studying in Hong Kong — something that attracted followers, she says. Although Chopra, who was born in India, grew up in Hong Kong, she does not speak Cantonese or Mandarin fluently, she says. Prospective graduate students from India, Pakistan, the United States and Europe messaged her to find out how she navigated a PhD despite language barriers.

Chopra is currently posting only once every few months as she focuses on wrapping up her PhD. But in the future, she says, she might document her transition from academia to industry. “I think people would be interested to see the journey from a PhD to biotech or pharmaceutical companies,” she says.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02294-9

Reprints and permissions

Related Articles

• Scientific community

Generative AI makes for better scientific writing — but beware the pitfalls

Correspondence 16 JUL 24

Science on the edge: how extreme outdoor skills enhanced our fieldwork

Career Feature 15 JUL 24

Your reagent is past its use-by date. Should you bin it?

Technology Feature 15 JUL 24

China–US research collaborations are in decline — this is bad news for everyone

News 19 JUL 24

What is it like to attend a predatory conference?

Career Feature 18 JUL 24

Three-year delay for Indian census frustrates researchers

News 18 JUL 24

Microbiologist wins case against university over harassment during COVID

News 12 JUL 24

Spy on millions of sleeping butterflies and more — June’s best science images

News 02 JUL 24

‘It can feel like there’s no way out’ — political scientists face pushback on their work

News Feature 19 JUN 24

2 PhD Student Positions and 1 Post-Doctoral Position

The DFG-funded Collaborative Research Center CRC 1644 “Phenotypic plasticity in plants - mechanisms, constraints and evolution”, hosted at the Un...

Potsdam, Brandenburg (DE)

Universität Potsdam

Fully-funded PhD positions on perovskite and tandem solar cell - ANU - world's top 30 university

Join a world-class photovoltaics research group, contribute to the development of the next generation of solar cells at ANU- world's top 30 university

Canberra, Australian Capital Territory (AU)

The Australian National University- School of Engineering

Assistant Professor

The Division of Immunobiology within the Department of Pathology and Immunology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis is seeking...

Saint Louis, Missouri

Washington University in Saint Louis Division of Immunobiology

Become a Harvard Radcliffe Institute Fellow

Harvard Radcliffe Institute fellows are exceptional scientists, writers, s...

Cambridge, Massachusetts

Harvard Radcliffe Institute

Associate or Senior Editor

Position: Associate or Senior Editor Location: NYC or Berlin - Hybrid working model Deadline: August 27th, 2024   JOB SUMMARY: Nature, the internat...

New York City, New York (US)

Springer Nature Ltd

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

Do you need first authorship to use a publication for your PhD thesis? [closed]

I'm a full-time staff assisting research. Not a student.

Jacob asked me to use the knowledge and skill that I learned during my Masters to help him do a meta-analysis for his Project as he has never done one. He told me that he wanted it to be on 'disease name' and 'target population' on 'phenomenon'. That was it. I ran with it - wrote up the protocol, did the search, initial title/abstract screening, looked through the full paper and extracted all data to see what outcomes we could pool. All throughout I shared with Jacob everything I had done through email. Jacob did not like the research question and outcome that I had decided upon because he wanted something more clinically practical - RCTs and intervention studies - except there were no papers and I indicated this to him. I reasoned with him to say that his outcome may not be clinically relevant, but I foresee it being cited many times as something that many people will probably refer to in the future.

I ask Jacob to do help with the screening as well. I send him instructions and he doesn't follow through saying that he's too busy to do this. I suggest asking a student to help, to which he refused to because he wants to do it himself. I tell him that the screening doesn't take much intellectual contribution and that the data analysis and interpretation is the most important aspect - his contribution will not be overshadowed. Time passed and a year goes by with no further progress. I continue to collect papers and contact authors for extra data during this period.

Now Jacob is claiming the meta-analysis to be his right to have first authorship for his PhD thesis. He says that I must hand over all materials to him and that he will be the one to decide on the authorship order. Never once throughout the process had I been told that this would be part of his PhD. I feel that there has been this imbalance of power - I do not know who his PhD supervisor is and they have never been involved in this process. Had there been a third party to oversee this, I feel that this process would have gone a lot smoother. I also know that I have put significant effort, time, intellectual contribution into this meta-analysis and it feels like all that work has been taken away from me.

I do not mind if Jacob uses the meta-analysis for his thesis but I would like to publish it as first author or, at the very least, first co-author with my name first. Can both Jacob and I get what we want or must he really be sole first author to be able to use the meta-analysis for hid PhD thesis?

• You should have your supervisors sort this out for you. Generally speaking, PhD theses only have one author but journal articles can have multiple authors. Often it is fine to use part, and sometimes all, of a multiauthored journal article as part of a PhD thesis, even if the thesis author is not the first author of the article. –  Anonymous Physicist Commented Jan 19, 2021 at 4:10
• 2 "I do not know who his PhD supervisor is and they have never been involved in this process." This sounds like your real problem. –  Anonymous Physicist Commented Jan 19, 2021 at 4:11
• Yes.. I do not know who Jacob's PhD supervisors are. Project A's supervisor is not Jacob's. If the first comment you said is true, then I think it should be fine for me to lead the publication and provide all the data to Jacob for him to freely use it in whatever aspect he wants for his thesis. Hopefully he will be willing to negotiate. –  user134089 Commented Jan 19, 2021 at 4:22
• 1 Please do not vandalize your own post. –  Nobody Commented Jan 19, 2021 at 12:51
• 2 RE vandalization: please see here for an explanation, and some alternatives. –  cag51 ♦ Commented Jan 19, 2021 at 13:00

Authorship issues within a group should be resolved by supervisors. This is easily found out by a simple web search or by simply asking lab members. It’s probably on your university’s website.

Authorship order can include two lead authors. This can be explicit (ie written in the submission notes) or implicit (by authorship order conventions in your community).

However, from what you describe your coauthor is abusing their position, or just given a lot of authority by the PI. If any of my students threatened a labmate they’d be in trouble. Ultimately the supervisor should decide material access, and more. Indeed, as you say - since two funding agencies are involved the two supervisors (yours and theirs) should be involved if only to agree whose grant the paper goes on.

Finally, this has nothing to do with thesis work. You can definitely include coauthored work in a thesis, with the express permission of your coauthors. I ‘donated’ a nice figure to a coauthor’s thesis and was happy to do it!

• 2 A small unrelated note, expecting a PhD student to pay you back for your work since you’re on a different grant is a complete misunderstanding of how grants work, and an over expectation on grad student salary... –  Spark Commented Jan 19, 2021 at 4:57
• 1 I did not expect the PhD student to pay me back. I am a full-time staff and depending on the allocation of money from the grant (public funding), I need to adjust the time I spend working. Example, I cannot work on other projects if my salary is 100% coming from Project A. The co-authorship sounds like the best compromise. From what Jacob has told me, he says he requires first author for it to be part of his thesis. I did not do my research and did not know that this is not the case. Thank you for informing me. –  user134089 Commented Jan 19, 2021 at 6:28
• In that case I think you should clarify the line “ Jacob refuses to give back the money” –  Spark Commented Jan 19, 2021 at 13:12
• Featured on Meta
• Announcing a change to the data-dump process
• Upcoming initiatives on Stack Overflow and across the Stack Exchange network...
• We spent a sprint addressing your requests — here’s how it went

Hot Network Questions

• Can a British citizen, currently visiting Canada on ETA, enter the USA via the Niagara Falls land border without an ESTA?
• What is the maximum number of people who speak only 1 language?
• Fire (as in shooting) in plural
• Movie with a snake-like monster escaping from a borehole in Antarctica?
• Could time (in the sense of a labor-hour) be a stable commodity base for a currency on the modern city-state level?
• What is the last MacTeX distribution for macOS 10.13?
• Looking for an old cartoon about a boy who became a pirate
• Tied notes that could be dotted
• How widely is "where failure could result in death, injury, or damage" interpreted?
• How can 4 chess queens attack all empty squares on a 6x6 chessboard without attacking each other?
• Is an EU ID card enough to fly from the UK to Ireland with Aer Lingus in July 2024?
• What does the word "Eine" means in latin?
• Is it possible to have a double miracle Sudoku grid?
• Could there be another relative language of the ancient Egyptian language closer to it than the Coptic?
• Is my Lemon Tree Dead as a Dodo?
• Can a group have a subgroup whose complement is closed under the group operation?
• What's the fastest real-world travel time to the opposite side of the world?
• Competing Risks that are not mutually exclusive in Survival Analysis
• How do I distinguish between "e" the natural log base and a variable conventionally referred to as "e"?
• Old client wants files from materials created for them 6 years ago
• Limiting voltage on voltage monitoring pin
• How does Biden staying in the presidential race hurt Democrats in Congress?
• How to restore a destroyed vampire as a vampire?
• Can you use Prime in order to treat businesses as nodes?