guidelines for authorship for core facility personnel n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Guidelines for authorship for core facility personnel PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Guidelines for authorship for core facility personnel

Guidelines for authorship for core facility personnel

295 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Guidelines for authorship for core facility personnel

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Guidelines for authorship for core facility personnel

  2. Guidelines for authorship Intern. Committee of Medical Journal Editors ( • 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

  3. 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)

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. Who Should Be an Author? • 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

  8. 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

  9. 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.

  10. When to refuse authorship that is offered to you: • 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?

  11. 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)

  12. 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)

  13. 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?)

  14. Use Pub Med advanced search function.

  15. 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 munroe-meyer[ad] OR boystown[ad] OR (boys[ad] AND town[ad]) OR creighton[ad])

  16. Chose your My NCBI.

  17. Run your search regularly.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. How does the integrated research model impact authorship for Core Facility personnel ? Integrated Research Model

  21. Integrated Research Project Investigator(s) Genomics Research problem Biostatistics Bioinformatics Experimental Proteomics Genomics Sample preparation Biostatistics Proteomics Data Bioinformatics Results Bioinformatics Interpretation Publication

  22. 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

  23. 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

  24. 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?

  25. 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

  26. Complex 2D gel proteomics projects have many co-authors • CORE facility co-authorship if they are: • Major contributors on technical, SOP development, infrastructure building, or travel to collect samples • Being the mass spectrometrists making hundreds of identifications weekly • Be in charge of data informatics for interpretation and paper submission • Being the missing links for maintaining the continuity of technologies during personnel transition

  27. 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 • 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.

  28. 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

  29. Co-authorship comes from going the extra mile • Researches literature and databases to add value to the experiment • Suggests controls, informatics to find additional good genes • Provides hundreds of locally validated assays at reduced cost • Provides info on known successful assays in the same model system • Provides assay design, QC of probes, validation, data analysis, write paper and grant sections • Works flexible hours to assure rapid data turn around • The need for co-authorship becomes self-obvious

  30. Criteria for co-authorship Quality Quantity Above and beyond the call of duty

  31. Dilemma of a Facility Director who is also a PI