7

  1. People start recognizing you as an important researcher in the community.

  2. You don't get much credit for the paper, as the assumption will be that the senior researchers have done most of the heavy lifting, and that you were more of a scribe.

Which of these options is closer to the truth?

freebird
  • 99
  • 1
  • 3
  • 14
    Probably neither; you don't choose who you write papers with, you choose who you do research with. You don't just add people to the author list or leave them off: someone on the author list should have contributed to the work. But, I suppose if you mention a field it might help someone answer about how authorship is perceived within that field, these things are not generalizable across academia. – Bryan Krause Aug 08 '23 at 21:25
  • It depends, especially on the content of the paper and its relationship to the other publications of both authors. Potentially also on the co-author constellations of the ECR's other published papers. – lighthouse keeper Aug 08 '23 at 21:37
  • @BryanKrause- I'm talking about being asked to join a project. This is for a STEM field. – freebird Aug 08 '23 at 21:47
  • @lighthousekeeper- As an early-career researcher, should I focus more on writing papers by myself or other early-career people, rather than join big-name groups with senior faculty? – freebird Aug 08 '23 at 21:48
  • 3
    In answer to your response to @BryanKrause I suggest you decide about the invitation based on how much the project appeals to you in comparison to your other options. That is, choose on the basis of the content, not the "credit" you might earn. – Ethan Bolker Aug 08 '23 at 22:15
  • 2
    STEM is extremely broad: math, engineering, and biology, for example, have extremely different authorship conventions. What do you mean "being asked to join a project"? What is the alternative? Not doing the project? Then you don't have a project to publish. – Bryan Krause Aug 08 '23 at 22:16
  • 1
    One project should not make or break a career. Work on it if you're interested; don't if you're not. Just make sure to have other projects as well. – Alexander Woo Aug 08 '23 at 22:25
  • 1
    @AlexanderWoo- I do have other solo projects that I'm pursuing. However, my more specific question is the following: these big name authors frequently publish papers with less illustrious authors at smaller places, probably because it helps them deal with the part of the process that they don't want to do. I was just wondering if there is a "taint" associated with doing too many of these projects: you're seen more as a lackey than an independent thinker. – freebird Aug 08 '23 at 22:28
  • @AlexanderWoo- I do want to do the project. This field is new to me, and at the very least I will be learning lots of new stuff. However, I do want to avoid this process if I'm going to come across as someone piggy-backing on others' reputation than on my own hard-work. – freebird Aug 08 '23 at 22:30
  • @BryanKrause- I don't want to give more details in order to not dox myself. You may read my comments to Alexander Woo to get some more context on my question. I do appreciate your answers – freebird Aug 08 '23 at 22:34
  • 5
    Saying you work in "math" or "chemistry" and are possibly going to work with someone well-known in your field isn't going to "dox" you. – Bryan Krause Aug 08 '23 at 22:46
  • You can just publish your own papers on the side to show that you can work independently as well. In general, collaboration is a good thing, so collaborating with famous senior people is even better. – Tom Aug 09 '23 at 07:59
  • 1
    When I see a paper whose authors are "Joe Random" and "Well Known Professor", I assume that Joe Random did most of the work - that Joe Random is Well Known Professor's student, and that the professor was mostly supervising/mentoring... – poncho Aug 09 '23 at 13:20

4 Answers4

21

Joining a project with more senior people can be a benefit to your career. Assuming they are reputable there is little downside. You get to work with more experienced people, engage in research/technical conversations, get and share ideas.

If you publish with them, your papers are more likely to be read, based on their reputations. But, beyond that, you have an opportunity to greatly expand your circle of collaboration, potentially leading to other projects in the future. The experienced people already have a circle that you can be integrated into.

Eventually you want first and sole-author publications, but it isn't essential to start out that way, especially if people don't take notice or your work is lacking due to less experience and depth.

If they write grant proposals, get involved in that, just for the experience.

Some people are generous about authorship, letting you take the lead. One more paper is more important for you than for them. Yes, people may assume that the senior person had the ideas, but if they are good ideas then you get associated with them. The other assumption people will make is that this senior person sees something valuable in you. That vote of confidence can be helpful.

Treat your early career as a continuation of your learning experience and an opportunity to make and develop lots of contacts - especially with people who have a lot of ideas.

Buffy
  • 363,966
  • 84
  • 956
  • 1,406
  • 4
    Overall a great answer, but just two details to note: (1) in many STEM fields, sole-author publications are nowadays very rare, if not unheard of (in my very narrow sub-field, I remember one from 10 years ago... none since), and (2) in my field at least (computer science), a first authorship usually signifies the person who did the most technical work (PhD student or a postdoc), while last authorship tends to signify the person who "conceived" the work/project/broad idea (i.e. the advisor). So what one generally wants, in comp-sci, is to transition from first authorships to last authorships – penelope Aug 09 '23 at 15:54
3

A study from 2019 looked at this very question.

Li, W., Aste, T., Caccioli, F. et al. Early coauthorship with top scientists predicts success in academic careers. Nat Commun 10, 5170 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-13130-4

Here's their abstract:

We examined the long-term impact of coauthorship with established, highly-cited scientists on the careers of junior researchers in four scientific disciplines. Here, using matched pair analysis, we find that junior researchers who coauthor work with top scientists enjoy a persistent competitive advantage throughout the rest of their careers, compared to peers with similar early career profiles but without top coauthors. Such early coauthorship predicts a higher probability of repeatedly coauthoring work with top-cited scientists, and, ultimately, a higher probability of becoming one. Junior researchers affiliated with less prestigious institutions show the most benefits from coauthorship with a top scientist. As a consequence, we argue that such institutions may hold vast amounts of untapped potential, which may be realised by improving access to top scientists.

Sverre
  • 2,796
  • 1
  • 15
  • 17
1

Hi my thoughts on your points

  1. You may indeed be able to reach out to those on the paper with you, or connect with them at events/conferences and thereby meet even more people. This is probably the most valuable thing, you will need to make this happen though, just having your name on the paper isn't much use on its own.

  2. This is not case. I would say most will understand that it is the senior researcher that is lending their prestige, vision, planning capabilities and authority to the work mostly done by others and described in the paper.

Kelley Brady
  • 111
  • 1
0

I have coauthored papers with undergraduates and also with a Nobel Prize winner. In my experience, the fame of my coauthors was unimportant and there were no consequences.

Some people will read your paper, cite it, write more positive reviews, or try to hire you because your coauthor is famous. Those people's opinions are not worth much and do not have much consequence.

Anonymous Physicist
  • 98,828
  • 24
  • 203
  • 351