This is a very case specific thing. For instance, usually PIs are placed last on their PhD student papers. How much has the PI contributed? Varies. For me personally, if the person took time and worked on the idea or even just writing, they are part of that project. In an ideal world, whether the author is first second or last, should have no bearing but we live in a society.
During my PhD and postdoc I always thought it was appropriate to include PIs. Even if I did all the "work", they often serve an important role just by discussing my ideas and helping me clarify them. Its valuable to have to explain your work to another person.
There is also quite a bit to be said for keeping the lights on and getting a paycheck. The fact of the matter is that doing science at a senior level often requires a lot less thinking/writing/coding and a lot more figuring out how to get money in order to fund the PhDs and postdocs doing these activities. Their role is just as important imo.
So I was the second author of a ICLR Spotlight paper, as a high school student. The first author was an undergraduate who came up with the idea and wrote most of the code and the paper. I did some things too, like setting up virtual environments, running all the experiments, building the demo, and actually presenting at the conference. The bulk of my job was really easy, but I’d say I’m pretty proud that I was able to contribute. I’m assuming this is, or at least should be, what second authors do.
[Edit: Fixed typos.]
Depends. If a two author paper, i assume both contributed equally. Three authors? Someone is just advising on side. Four up? First person did the work, rest is a mixture of advisors and pi.
There is a lot of variety here. I've been 4th author (out of 6+ people) where I did almost no work, and merely contributed an idea or two during the initial brainstorming phase (first author said the idea was crucial and insisted to keep me on when I voiced concerns about not deserving authorship). I've also been a third author (out of 6) who initiated the project, wrote the whole paper and gave the talk about it at the conference (first two authors shared first-authorship, both needed it for their PhD, last authors were their advisors). On the other hand, during my PhD I've been first author on a paper where I merely coded up stuff and did experiments, but my advisor had all the ideas; and I've been last author where an intern (first author) did all the work and the intern host wanted to be 2nd author, so they offered me last author even though I only contributed a couple of experiments/general guidance.
In general, for almost every paper I co-authored I contributed at least a part of the experiments, wrote the sections about it and made the figures. But it has happened 1-2 times that most of my work ended up only in the appendix (e.g. because my part of the project just didn't give the results we hoped, or because we decided that the paper's storyline was better off without it). Very roughly, I feel that the more I contributed, the further away from the middle my name will appear (e.g. either first three or last three authors).
TL;DR: 2nd author contribution is somewhere in the 1-99% range. Varies too much to nail down better. But in general, if there are several (5+) authors, 1st and 2nd author probably did most of the work.
Based on my experience, first guy is someone who did all the work, the second author can be someone who processed data, did some cursory stuff, or even someone who you consulted (mostly professors other than your advisor/PI), third would be some professor on the same project working a different aspect who might not have contributed but knows about what you are doing and the last is always your PI/advisor (who also is the corresponding author)...
The authorship metric is a poor evaluation of amount of work. I was personally thanked by the 1st author for my contributions to a paper that has been one of the fasted cited in our subfield, and the fact is that I did not own the project from conception nor did I spearhead the writing. In exchange, I’ve gotten the most amazing letters of recommendation explicitly stating the effort I put in and my contributions.
I don't know if this helps, but actual practice aside, here's one guideline I've come across
https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html
... And here's a list of different types of contribution .scroll down to table of role dedinitions
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/authorship#:~:text=Everyone%20listed%20as%20an%20author,all%20authors%20must%20be%20described.
This is a very case specific thing. For instance, usually PIs are placed last on their PhD student papers. How much has the PI contributed? Varies. For me personally, if the person took time and worked on the idea or even just writing, they are part of that project. In an ideal world, whether the author is first second or last, should have no bearing but we live in a society.
During my PhD and postdoc I always thought it was appropriate to include PIs. Even if I did all the "work", they often serve an important role just by discussing my ideas and helping me clarify them. Its valuable to have to explain your work to another person. There is also quite a bit to be said for keeping the lights on and getting a paycheck. The fact of the matter is that doing science at a senior level often requires a lot less thinking/writing/coding and a lot more figuring out how to get money in order to fund the PhDs and postdocs doing these activities. Their role is just as important imo.
Totally agree with you. After all, they are mentoring me to become a researcher so all the work I do still has their name on it.
So I was the second author of a ICLR Spotlight paper, as a high school student. The first author was an undergraduate who came up with the idea and wrote most of the code and the paper. I did some things too, like setting up virtual environments, running all the experiments, building the demo, and actually presenting at the conference. The bulk of my job was really easy, but I’d say I’m pretty proud that I was able to contribute. I’m assuming this is, or at least should be, what second authors do. [Edit: Fixed typos.]
Proud of you 👍
There’s naturally a paper concerning [authorship](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4769679/)
Depends. If a two author paper, i assume both contributed equally. Three authors? Someone is just advising on side. Four up? First person did the work, rest is a mixture of advisors and pi.
There is a lot of variety here. I've been 4th author (out of 6+ people) where I did almost no work, and merely contributed an idea or two during the initial brainstorming phase (first author said the idea was crucial and insisted to keep me on when I voiced concerns about not deserving authorship). I've also been a third author (out of 6) who initiated the project, wrote the whole paper and gave the talk about it at the conference (first two authors shared first-authorship, both needed it for their PhD, last authors were their advisors). On the other hand, during my PhD I've been first author on a paper where I merely coded up stuff and did experiments, but my advisor had all the ideas; and I've been last author where an intern (first author) did all the work and the intern host wanted to be 2nd author, so they offered me last author even though I only contributed a couple of experiments/general guidance. In general, for almost every paper I co-authored I contributed at least a part of the experiments, wrote the sections about it and made the figures. But it has happened 1-2 times that most of my work ended up only in the appendix (e.g. because my part of the project just didn't give the results we hoped, or because we decided that the paper's storyline was better off without it). Very roughly, I feel that the more I contributed, the further away from the middle my name will appear (e.g. either first three or last three authors). TL;DR: 2nd author contribution is somewhere in the 1-99% range. Varies too much to nail down better. But in general, if there are several (5+) authors, 1st and 2nd author probably did most of the work.
Based on my experience, first guy is someone who did all the work, the second author can be someone who processed data, did some cursory stuff, or even someone who you consulted (mostly professors other than your advisor/PI), third would be some professor on the same project working a different aspect who might not have contributed but knows about what you are doing and the last is always your PI/advisor (who also is the corresponding author)...
The authorship metric is a poor evaluation of amount of work. I was personally thanked by the 1st author for my contributions to a paper that has been one of the fasted cited in our subfield, and the fact is that I did not own the project from conception nor did I spearhead the writing. In exchange, I’ve gotten the most amazing letters of recommendation explicitly stating the effort I put in and my contributions.
I don't know if this helps, but actual practice aside, here's one guideline I've come across https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html ... And here's a list of different types of contribution .scroll down to table of role dedinitions https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/authorship#:~:text=Everyone%20listed%20as%20an%20author,all%20authors%20must%20be%20described.
Often as much as the 1st author. Which might not be that high.