Happy birthday, love from “Me, no me first” et al.

Buying a birthday present for a friend isn’t a difficult task in theory, but it does become more complicated as more and more people contribute. What starts off as a generous gesture can become an awkward and, in extreme cases, nasty situation as the number of names on the card grows. Especially when you have to get one of those huge novelty-sized cards!

All gift givers are not created equal, and there are always a few people who put in more effort, time and money on the present than others. There are also many different steps involved in group gift-giving. First of all, someone has to come up with the original idea to give the present, and then it needs to be decided what the present should be. The gift needs to be found, paid for and wrapped up. Someone needs to organise and write on the card and finally, someone needs to hand over the gift to the birthday person. Then there is almost certainly one person who has forgotten their friend’s birthday who, having been involved in no part of the gift-giving process, asks to put their name on the card at the last minute.

It is important to be acknowledged on the card if you have contributed in a significant way in the gift-giving process. But how worthy does this contribution need to be to be recognised on the card? Usually the person who organises the gift writes their name first on the list of gift-givers on the card, and the recipient can tell who to thank most. But what if someone else contributed more money or prepared an elaborate hand-made card especially for the occasion? What position in the list of names do they deserve to occupy?

Most of you would agree that this is a rather trivial and petty argument and you might ask what a post about group birthday presents is doing in a science blog like this. But the scenario of giving a group birthday present is perhaps the most appropriate analogy to describe the issue of authorship on science research papers. And authorship is certainly not a trivial issue.

As I discussed in my previous post, it is no easy task to climb (or sometimes simply hold onto) the slippery sides of the pyramid scheme of science academia. Peer-reviewed research papers are the internationally-recognised currency of science research. A scientist’s chances of landing a job, successfully applying for grant funding or achieving the respect of their peers all depends largely on the number of research papers they have authored.


Quantifying a researcher’s excellence is not simply a case of counting the number of articles they have authored, since not all articles are created equal. A single-authored papers is often considered more valuable fodder for a curriculum vitae that one with multiple authors. The order of names in the author list on multi-author articles is also paramount – being first author suggests ownership and leadership of the research project, while the last author is usually the head of the laboratory or research group and may have supplied the funds for the project. Other positions in the author list are less esteemed, reserved for people who played more minor parts in the project, but they nevertheless serve as a feather in the cap of any scientist’s CV.

Potential employers and funding bodies also consider the reputation of the journal in which the article is published, and how many times other researchers around the world have cited the article in subsequent publications. Both the quality of the journal and the number of citations are good indicators of the timeliness and excellence of the research. Such is the need to measure the research output of scientists that there are several indices that attempt to reduce a scientist’s worth to a single number for ease of comparison.

The pressure on scientists to be authors on more and more articles creates tension and politics and can lead to soured relationships between colleagues. It is not unusual for arguments to arise about author list order or about whether someone’s contribution is sufficient to merit authorship or simply an acknowledgement at the end of the article. Unfortunately, inexperienced researchers and students can be exploited and may not receive the recognition they deserve if other co-authors or supervisors abuse their positions of trust.

Navigating the sticky issue of authorship requires sensible and honest discussion before the project starts, and a certain amount of tact and diplomacy never goes astray. This should avoid the problem of last-minute, unexpected or unreasonable requests for authorship, because the consequences of authorship in science are definitely more significant than whether or not you get due credit for the bath soaps and scented candles you gave your mate for their birthday.

Comic from www.phdcomics.com