Transcript Guidelines for authorship for core facility personnel

Guidelines for authorship
for core facility personnel
Guidelines for authorship
Intern. Committee of Medical Journal Editors
(www.ICMJE.org)

Author should make substantive
intellectual contributions to the project
– Conception and design of project
– Acquisition of data, analysis and
interpretation
– Drafting the article or revising it critically
for intellectual content
– Critical input, original ideas
– Final approval of article
Authorship is not recommended for
following contributions alone:



Acquisition of funding (Department
chair who has no intellectual input)
Collection of data (technical skill but
not involved in interpretation of data)
General supervision of research group
(lab manager)
Responsibility for content



Each author should have participated
enough to take responsibility for the
appropriate portion of the content
Write a portion of the paper (not just
materials and methods section)
Intellectual contribution
Acknowledgements

All contributors that do not meet the
criteria of authorship should be listed
in the acknowledgements
–
–
–
–
technical help
writing assistance
financial and material support
scientific advice
Panel




Thomas Neubert, New York University
School of Medicine
Laurey Steinke, University of Nebraska
Medical Center
Stephen Bobin, Dartmouth University
Anthony Yeung, Fox Chase Cancer
Center
Who Should Be an Author?
1. Those, and only those, who have made an important
contribution to the overall design and execution of the
experiment(s) that produced new results (the discovery)
2. One who takes intellectual responsibility for the research
results being reported
-Difficult to do in the modern collaborative era. A paper may
represent many disciplines
-Still, this does not absolve us of all responsibility (we still choose and
trust our colleagues)
-Often it is incredibly difficult to analyze intellectual input to a paper
3. Authorship and sequence of authors should be decided
unanimously
before the research is started
From Robert A. Day: How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper 5th Edition
Who Should Be an Author?
(cont)



Summary: The scientific paper should list as authors only those who
have contributed substantially to the work.
-Dilution effect of the multiauthor approach adversely affects
the real investigators
Example 1: Scientist A designs the experiments, and tells Technician
B exactly how to do the experiments. If the experiments work
and a new discovery and manuscript result, Scientist A is the
sole author and Technician B is recognized in the
Acknowledgements section.
Example 2: Scientist A designs the experiments, Technician B carries
them out but they do not work. Technician B suggests some
changes to the protocol, the experiments then work and a
discovery results. Scientist A and Technician B are now both
authors.
From Robert A. Day: How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper 5th Edition
There is usually room for interpretation of
any set of guidelines



Issues for core facilities:
During early days of technology development,
intellectual contribution may merit authorship (e.g.
protein identification by MS or posttranslational
modification such as phosphorylation, or large scale
quantitative experiments such as SILAC)
After some time, the techniques become standard and
no longer merit authorship (protein ID and
phosphorylation), but SILAC still does merit authorship
due to experimental design, data interpretation, etc.
When to refuse authorship
that is offered to you:
1. You did not contribute substantially
- If your collaborators said you did but you think you did not,
don’t argue (too forcefully) with them- they usually know!
- e.g. negative or unreported results may have had a critical
influence on final successful reported experiments and
discovery
2. You cannot take responsibility for the section you did
-e.g. you don’t agree with interpretation or use of results you
provided
-remember, your reputation is on the line!
3. Other examples?
Request authorship for Edman
degradation when:



you must develop a new cycle (more than
just changing a dry down time)
you need to write a section of the methods
(the standard phrase “submitted for Edman
degradation” doesn’t adequately describe
what you did)
you participate in planning the experiments
(more than just an educational session in
your office)
Request authorship for amino acid
analysis when:



you must develop a new method (more than
just changing a gradient time)
you need to write a section of the methods
(the standard phrase “submitted for amino
acid analysis” doesn’t adequately describe
what you did)
you participate in planning the experiments
(more than just an educational session in
your office)
They didn’t give me authorship,
what now?



Remind them to list you and your core
facility in the acknowledgment section (add
a line in your data report)
Check the methods section (it should
contain the name of your core facility)
List the papers that result from use of your
core for the institutional bean counters
(How do I find them?)
Use Pub Med advanced search
function.
Set up the search like this:
(Doe J[ane] OR Smith J[ohn] AND
(UNMC[ad] OR ne[ad] OR nebraska
OR omaha[ad] OR nebr[ad] OR
nebr.[ad] OR eppley[ad] OR munroemeyer[ad] OR boystown[ad] OR
(boys[ad] AND town[ad]) OR
creighton[ad])
Chose your My NCBI.
Run your search regularly.
Hints for finding your
facility



Read the abstract and/or methods
Use google on the entire paper for
your name
Google your name or your core facility-acknoweldgements don’t come up in
Pub med, but they do show up in
google.
How to track the $$$



Keep track of the cost centers used to
pay for your services
Get a good contact in your Sponsored
Programs office
Ask Sponsored Programs to track
down the details of the grants for you.
How does the integrated research model
impact authorship for Core Facility personnel ?
Integrated Research Model
Integrated Research Project
Investigator(s)
Genomics
Research problem
Biostatistics
Proteomics
Bioinformatics
Experimental
Genomics
Sample preparation
Biostatistics
Proteomics
Data
Bioinformatics
Results
Interpretation
Publication
Bioinformatics
At the Start






PI’s understanding of your role
PI’s expectation of the core’s role
Exactly what your core is being asked to do
What are other cores being asked to do?
Give a fair estimate of costs
Be clear about potential additional charges
During the project






Keep a log of your contributions
Keep track of your time
Keep track of small things you should
charge for
Meet with the PI regularly
Bill regularly
Communicate with the other cores
At the end





+ Your contribution over and above charges?
+ Your contribution to the interpretation of the
results
+ How much did you write?
+ Did you do more than the other cores?
- Final interpretation agree with your cores data?
Co-authorship in 2D gel proteomics
2D gels with 3 overlapping pH ranges, resolve >6000 spots and identify
about 2000 proteins in high throughput protein identification
Complex 2D gel proteomics projects
have many co-authors
CORE facility co-authorship if they are:
1. Major contributors on technical, SOP development, infrastructure
building, or travel to collect samples
2. Being the mass spectrometrists making hundreds of identifications
weekly
3. Be in charge of data informatics for interpretation and paper
submission
4. Being the missing links for maintaining the continuity of technologies
during personnel transition
Co-authorship opportunities
in a real-time PCR facility
• The manager can cultivate for frequent co-authorship
• On more vital contributions, she can even be
recognized as second or third author
An example of good publication record in one year:
Emmanuelle Nicolas
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
van Slegtenhorst, Khabibullin, Hartman, Nicolas, Kruger, and Henske,. J Biol Chem, 282: 24583-90, 2007.
Chai, Chang, Nicolas, Gudima, Chang, and Taylor, J Virol, 81: 10897-904, 2007.
Gudima, He, Meier, Chang, Chen, Jarnik, Nicolas, Bruss, and Taylor. J Virol, 81: 3608-17, 2007.
Katz, Jack-Scott, Narezkina, Palagin, Boimel, Kulkosky, Nicolas, E., Greger, and Skalka. J Virol, 81: 2592-604, 2007.
Page, Klein-Szanto, Litwin, Nicolas, Al-Jumaily, Alexander, Godwin, Ross, Schilder, and Bassi,. Cell Oncol, 29: 289-99, 2007.
Rose, Vorobyeva, Skipworth, Nicolas, and Rall,. J Neuroimmunol, 192: 145-56, 2007.
Singh,., Nicolas, Gherraby, Dadke, Lessin, and Golemis.. Oncogene, 26: 4825-32, 2007.
Co-authorship is not always
based on a single experiment
J. Virology. 2007, 81,10897–10904.
Chai, Chang, Nicolas, Gudima, Chang, and Taylor
 Figure 4: analysis of nuclear extracts after rate-zonal sedimentation by
qPCR
J. Virology, 2008, 82 1118–1127
Chang, Nie, Chang, Han, and Taylor
Acknowledgments to E. Nicolas
 Figure 5: analysis of nuclear extracts after rate-zonal sedimentation by
qPCR
In 2007, Nicolas processed 111 sets of samples for
six members of the Taylor lab. She is valued as
though she is an integral lab member
Co-authorship comes from going the
extra mile
1. Researches literature and databases to add value to the experiment
2. Suggests controls, informatics to find additional good genes
3. Provides hundreds of locally validated assays at reduced cost
4. Provides info on known successful assays in the same model
system
5. Provides assay design, QC of probes, validation, data analysis, write
paper and grant sections
6. Works flexible hours to assure rapid data turn around
7. The need for co-authorship becomes self-obvious
Criteria for co-authorship
Quality
Quantity
Above and beyond the call of duty
Dilemma of a Facility Director who is also a PI